Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 14 August 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 Speedy keep. Not just per WP:SNOW, but nominating at the midst of the recent controversy—which is a bad look for him—is not a great look for Wikipedia (i.e. might comes across as retaliatory). El_C 22:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

Linus Sebastian[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Linus Sebastian (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)

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

  • Keep wikipedia is making a mockery of itself at this point. You wanna have an article for a lollipop lady nobody has ever heard of (bUt ShE hAs aN MbE!1!!) and delete the profile of an entrepreneur and famous television presenter with millions of viewers? What is wrong with you guys!?!? 87.196.74.168 (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies, particularly those on whataboutism and notability for people. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please, remain civil and assume good faith. —siroχo 03:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what does that have to do with the keep message? Sebbog13 (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the more appropriate question is what does the rest of what was posted after the keep itself has to do with the article in question. Both the responses by Siroxo and ElijahPepe were applicable. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All things considered this seems to be a rather major and well established youtube channel host. I do however feel that the article needs to be cleaned up with additional focus on his channel ("Linus Tech Tips"). Articles such as TheNeedleDrop or Philip DeFranco may serve as good comparisons for the scope of articles that cover large-but-not-massive youtubers. A MINOTAUR (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NoteThere is extensive focus on his/his company's numerous YT channels and company in Linus Media Group. Shifting that focus over to the article centered around him would be a mistake, extend well beyond the scope of the individual, and would take away from the LMG article. I would urge against this. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 13:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This YouTube Star Is Also a Retail Empire (Published 2022)". 2022-02-15. Retrieved 2023-08-16.
  • "Surrey man's tech-tip series achieves YouTube success - Peace Arch News". www.peacearchnews.com. 2017-01-26. Retrieved 2023-08-16.
  • Nast, Condé (2021-12-26). "Meet the 'Influpreneurs': The new breed of YouTube influencers staffing up and building business empires". British GQ. Retrieved 2023-08-16.
Jumpytoo Talk 04:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly meets WP:NBIO. Linus is a notable person per WP:CREATIVE. I think it is self evident that "become a significant monument" is clearly met. Not really sure why this is being proposed. If you made this in good faith, you should probably start going through and creating AfDs for pretty much any YouTuber (like Marques Brownlee). He's also commonly cited in various media outlets for issues facing YouTube creators, like YouTube is demonetizing videos about coronavirus, and creators are mad. Lightcrowd (talk) 10:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only two sources that mention Sebastian specifically are a NYT and a Kotaku article. Most other sources are primary, which does not suggest independent notability.Cortador (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also other sources, such as an Inc. Magazine article. If anything, this wiki article just needs to be expanded/TLC. I can find references to Linus in BBC, The Verge, Arstechnica, CNN and a few other news websites (prior to 2023). Seems to meed NBIO to me. I think a cleanup template message is more appropriate (too many primary sources, expansion, etc) is more appropriate. If the primary host and creator of the multiple Linus Media Group channels isn't notable enough, then I feel like it sets a precedent for more AfDs for other notable content creators across Wikipedia. Lightcrowd (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I just wanted to mention this nomination may (or may not, I do not intent to accuse people) be influenced by a recent controversy and some YouTube & Reddit drama involving the subject's behaviour (The gist of this drama is that he made huge blunders in a video about a startup's prototype and then bashed the startup and refused to fix the errors, auctioned off the prototype without permission, has a history of making basic mistakes in his videos, and recently a former employee has alleged mistreatment at this guy's company). So I would suggest that some admins and more experienced editors be on the look-out for randos commenting here without any other contribs. Tube·of·Light 12:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The original nomination was over 7 years ago, and Linus' notoriety has certainly only increased since then. Yes - the sourcing lends itself to not being the highest quality article, but not at all warrants an AfD nomination, and can likely and rather easily be fixed such as Lightcrowd mentioned above. In reality, this AfD is quite possibly retaliatory in nature due to recent controversies. If there were a way to nominate an AfD for deletion - this nomination would be a prime candidate. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article clearly passes WP:BIO. Since the first nomination for deletion, the article has been improved and most sections are properly sourced. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 14:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article needs improvement but meets WP:BIO AfD is overly extreme. UndeadAnarchy (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Are you kidding me? Linus Sebastian is severely notable as a person, he's been talked about in mainstream publications including the New York Times and The Verge, and this article has existed for years. This AfD is in my opinion a joke. Doesn't help that it was made after the Gamers Nexus controversy as well, making me think that there is some sort of ulterior motive behind this AfD, to let out some internal anger re: said controversy. I'm voting Keep purely because this AfD comes off as nothing but a joke as well as Linus just being severely notable as an individual. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 20:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
A. Linus is a notable person.
B. The article needs improving, not deleting
C. There are sources for Linus across various internet sources and news sites.
D. I think that this has been inflated by recent controversy. Jguiii (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly notable figure in the realm of both PC/technology and YouTube, per WP:NBIO and WP:WEB. Genuinely surprised to even see an AfD on him in the first place, considering there are sources about him from The New York Times, Kotaku, PC Gamer, Mashable, Lifehacker, The Washington Post, BGR and Ars Technica among other sources editors already pointed above. I hope this gets closed as a Snow Keep. PantheonRadiance (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Bankruptcy of Penn Central[edit]

Bankruptcy of Penn Central (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)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Manic Street Preachers discography#Extended plays. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Know Our B-Sides[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Know Our B-Sides (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)

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

KEEP - this single stands out as one of only 2 ever released exclusively in Japan. The discography is also incomplete without it. Also, there is an article and a discog template entry for Further Away as well as Life Becoming a Landslide and this has never been nominated for deletion. So, by the same logic - both Nobody Loved You and the Know Our B-Sides EP should both be kept. This track isn't some unofficial, non-authorized 12" whitelabel, it's an officially released single - but according to some Wikipedians, it doesn't count because it was only released in Japan. Should we remove the tracklistings of the Japanese album versions because they don't count too? Wikipedia specifically aims to not solely focus on the English speaking world as reiterated in . Finally, as per Wikipedia:Notability (music), "Specific to recordings, a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria: The recording has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it.". This has been satisfied because it appears on reputable Japanese sites. Furthermore, "the recording has appeared on any country's music chart". This single has, so it has satisfied two conditions where only one is required for notability.
Finally, @Muhandes: stated above "...just as it didn't satisfy it in 2012, when all relevant material was merged into Manic Street Preachers discography.". Why are you making statements that aren't true? None of this article was merged into the above, other than the title of the EP and the year. Your point is null and void because it's just not true Apeholder (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Apeholder: The title of the EP and the year are all the relevant material. If you find that offending, I will strike it out as it is immaterial. The material part is WP:NALBUM which is not satisfied. Muhandes (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Muhandes: the title and year is clearly not enough to satisfy your "it's contained elsewhere" assertion. Where does it say that those two pieces of info are enough? This EP has satisfied various conditions of the criteria you specified Apeholder (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Apeholder: I'm not sure what you are repeating this, I stroked out that "assertion" because it is an immaterial part of the nomination. The nomination is due to WP:NALBUM not being satisfied. Show that it is satisfied by editing the article, and I will be very happy to withdraw this nomination. Muhandes (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Muhandes: I have read WP:NALBUM that you keep referring to: "That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." By this logic, none of their singles should be included on Wikipedia. Also, I have read the First deletion discussion you referenced, but again nobody was able to describe why this article should be deleted but that the rest are notable enough to keep. One person even says "I Googled it and couldn't find much". It's a Japanese only release and Google shows you English articles! Of COURSE they wouldn't find much! There are also far more references to notability for this release than most other Manics articles. The release is notable enough to be included on WP as any others are, and it does not make sense having an incomplete discography on here because someone is being over-zealous when it comes to interpreting WP guidelines. I would love to hear an explanation. If this can be satisfied, then yes the article should be deleted.Apeholder (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Apeholder: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Muhandes (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Muhandes: It's also nothing to do with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - the examples given all take unrelated articles as justification for an article to stay up. The existence of Further Away shows this EXACT type of article exists already, not similar or totally unrelated as your example shows, but the EXACT same. The fact you offered this as a counter argument suggests you are either being very disingenuous or don't know the first thing about the subject matter. Also, have you noticed how I'm giving you extensive replies, and yours are pretty much one-liners with stuff that's not even relevant? So far you have said things that are clearly false and other things totally unrelated.Apeholder (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

  • Redirct per nom.   ArcAngel   (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. A WP:BEFORE search shows little to no sources, and if the article is to be kept, then the unreliable references (Discogs, Rate Your Music, etc.) need to be removed, but I'm inclined to redirect. Tails Wx (they/them) ⚧ 08:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The Three Little Bass and the Big Bad Gar[edit]

The Three Little Bass and the Big Bad Gar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed draftification. Fails WP:NBOOK, lacks any sources. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. I usually support Draftification but this has been contested twice already. Should the article creator want to continue working on this article in Draft space, hopefully by finding a few reliable sources to verify this subject's notability, let me or WP:REFUND know by making a request. Liz Read! Talk! 22:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Hams That Couldn't Be Cured[edit]

The Hams That Couldn't Be Cured (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

Terri Blackstock[edit]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Governance without government. Liz Read! Talk! 20:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zero world government[edit]

Zero world government (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)

As I hadn't heard of the term "zero world government" before, and I noticed the single cited source in this article didn't mention it, I looked into it on Google Scholar. This search only turned up 3 results for the term, none of which go into further depth on it than a definition.[2] On the other hand, the other leading term "governance without government" (which already has its own article) turned up 14,500 results,[3] while the term "governance beyond the nation state" turned up 2,110.[4] As there appears to be no substantial coverage in reliable services of the term "zero world government", I propose this be deleted and any (little) relevant information from this article merged into the article on governance without government. Grnrchst (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Presidential system#Presidentialism metrics. Liz Read! Talk! 06:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Presidentialism metrics[edit]

Presidentialism metrics (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 a notable topic; only content is basically a republishing of one organization's "Presidentialism index", no hits elsewhere. Looks like it was created by V-Dem, so it will remain a republishing of their index. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Social science. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A source in the article links [5] which discusses a couple other metrics "prespow1", "prespow2". I realize this article is nearly 2 months old without an update adding those, but it's possible this could be fleshed out to not jus be a republish of a single index. —siroχo 20:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the editor's other article Democracy indices (V-Dem), or delete. I'm not even sure what any of this means, except the only definition I find of "indice" that it's another word for "index". — Maile (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other presidentialism metrics/indices/scores before V-Dem are used in literature like presidential power scores.[1] But I agree there was no progress adding those, so I'm ok with
Merge back into Presidential system#Presidentialism metrics. HudecEmil (talk) 07:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment: Support merge. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 12:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Presidentialism#Presidentialism metrics. There is no additional information to merge, the bulk of this article is already taken from Democracy indices (V-Dem). - Indefensible (talk) 05:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect is fine as WP:ATD. —siroχo 06:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing new here, or something of substance, at least. A Redirect would be the merciful choice since a merge would only move source-unsupported text elsewhere. Why do we create such airy pap, one wonders. -The Gnome (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. The index itself is of questionable provenance and methodology, and the sources for it are weak, narrow and not really helpful to understanding the subject or the more general topic. Merging would simply move the problem and the monumental (and monumentally uninformative) table. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Jinx (band). Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coco Mosquito[edit]

Coco Mosquito (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)

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

  • {{R from member}} Jinx (band)? --Joy (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jinx (band) per Joy - not notable enough for its own article NotAGenious (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Found a couple of interviews, one quite detailed [6], [7] but not much else. Seems to be quite well known. Perhaps there is more out there with the right person doing the search. Redirect otherwise. scope_creepTalk 07:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since subject clearly does not meet the criteria set by WP:GNG or even WP:NCREATIVE for independent notability. We often operate as article creators under the implicit assumption that Wikipedia is some kind of directory; it is not. Many musicians or, in general, artists, might be important to us personally but this means little in terms of the project. -The Gnome (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Jinx (band) Elttaruuu (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Aivita Muze[edit]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevena Reid[edit]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. This AFD has been open for three weeks now and I don't see a consensus. No comments made since the last relisting so I'm closing this as No consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 19:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Florentine flogging[edit]

Florentine flogging (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)

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

  • Draftify, per below. It can do some cleaning up. Brachy08 (Talk) 06:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I say merge main parts into relevant article(s) and leave a redirect. Stop with this speedy delete for all sexual articles. Biofase flame| stalk  21:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have there been a lot of "speedy delete" for those types of articles? — Maile (talk) 00:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually yes. It is common for new sexual or sexuality related articles to be the subject of speedy delete requests. It does not fit the criteria for speedy deletion. Wikipedia policy is to rather try and improve articles. If something isn't sourced then add a source, if an article is lacking then tag it appropriately so it gets more attention and only remove dubious statements, if it's not large enough for its own article then include it in others. Biofase flame| stalk  13:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is hardly a new article. It's been tagged for lacking notability since 2010. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Affairs[edit]

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

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

  • Delete - band is not notable enough and article sounds like an advertisement. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Mediation Centre[edit]

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Singapore. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Agree that the sources used are Primary. I find this one [8], don't think it's enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I even used newspapers.com and newspaper-archive.com via the Wikipedia Library and found only partial matches. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a seminal organisation in the mediation profession of Singapore. See [9]. Google scholar also reveals:
  • [10] - SMC is the only centre in Singapore that allows mediations to be recognised by a court order
  • [11] - SMC mentioned as an "important development" in the history of ADR in Singapore
  • [12] - Chapter 2 is about the approach SMC mediators take
  • [13] - talks about SMC, its history and importance
  • [14] - mentions SMC
  • [15] - talks about SMC
See also: [16] - SMC develops an ADR process for .sg domains Dawkin Verbier (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
your source 1, singaporelawwatch has Copyright 2023 by Singapore Academy of Law which is the parent organisation thus not independent, 2 and 5 are from the singapore academy of law journal which is published the singapore academy of law, source 3, 6 and 7 are mentions thus not SIGCOV required for notability and your 8 is a brief paragraph. So in total your sources do not showcase how WP:NORG is met as they are a mix of mentions and non-independent coverage. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with your analysis of source independence. See WP:ORGIND and WP:Independent sources. The fact that SAL is the parent organisation of the SMC does not ipso facto make the SAL Journal dependent on the SMC. The SAL Journal is a peer-reviewed academic journal that is remotely operated from the SMC. To claim dependence here would be like saying that, since Conde Nast owns both Bon Appetit and The New Yorker, The New Yorker's coverage of BA is always non-independent. You need to show how the coverage of SMC in the sources you claim are "non-independent" are actually as such; to my mind, they are factual, in themselves show how the SMC is notable, and do not demonstrate any undue attention given. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  • a review of the sources presents by Indefensible
    • the first straittimes source is about the Singapore Construction Mediation Centre not the Singapore Mediation Centre and only mentions SMC in passing
    • the todayonline source is about an ADR scheme authorised by the SMC and only mentions the SMC itself in passing
    • the globallitigationnews sources is a bout a high court case and only mentions SMC in passing
    • the second straittimes source is mixed it begins being about the SMC for the first 4 paragraphs but morphs into a general piece about the rise of acceptance of mediation in Singapore in general.
    • the asianscientist piece is an interview with prof Eunice Chua and only mentions SMC
    • the borneobulletin piece is a short article on an event hosted by the BDAC in collaboration with SMC and mentions that they were collaborating and that SMC's principal trainer was a guest speaker.
  • so in total the sources presented are yet again more mentions of SMC which don't count towards notability. the second straittimes sources would count towards notability if there was more WP:SIGCOV, passing mentions fail SIGCOV required for WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the 1st ref: "More than 4,000 matters of various kinds have been mediated at SMC since it was established in 1997. Construction disputes make up about 40 per cent of the cases each year." That seems fairly significant in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    that is not what is meant by WP:SIGCOV, that sentence counts as a mention. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you have to interpret what the mention is saying, not just count the number of words. Anyway, that was just regarding the 1st ref, have to review the rest again. - Indefensible (talk) 18:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources listed above are enough to meet WP:GNG. Given the location, I think it likely that coverage in non-English sources could be significant, but it's unnecessary to search as there's enough in these English-language sources to meet WP:GNGJacona (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty District[edit]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to UK Independence Party. Liz Read! Talk! 19:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Veterans Against Terrorism[edit]

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

  • REDIRECT So I originally created this article just as a redirect to go along with this edit but when that edit was deleted in this diff the redirect no longer linked to anything about Veterans Against Terrorism.
If the article is to be deleted then I would request that the material in it be reinstated as a redirect to the history section of UK Independence Party to avoid WP:NOTCENSORED being breached. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Vintage Feminist I think that's a good idea. A subsection of the UKIP article makes sense. Qcne (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Turkestan Offensive (1724)[edit]

Turkestan Offensive (1724) (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)

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

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

  • Delete unreliable, not properly sourced, and the info box reeks of OR. Mccapra (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 20:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tom George Kolath[edit]

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

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

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

  • Keep - Among all the producers listed for deletion by the nominator, he has the most notability. Besides significant coverage in The Hindu article as above, he produced two major movies, one of which won the national award. He was also one of the leads in Akale, and had small but notable roles in Finger Print and Black (2004 film) Jupitus Smart 23:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 07:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Kumar V.R.[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Katherine Montesino[edit]

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

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

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

Yoanna Calderón[edit]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leida Chirino[edit]

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

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

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

Job Ross House[edit]

Job Ross 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)

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

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

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

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

N.M. Badusha[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Lechitel[edit]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to 2009 North American Christmas blizzard. Liz Read! Talk! 19:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Midwest Blizzard[edit]

2009 Midwest Blizzard (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)

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

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

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

Imagination philosophy[edit]

Imagination philosophy (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)

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

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

  • Delete Seems to be an outline for an article that was never written. "Philosophy of imagination" might be an appropriate topic, but it's not at all clear whether that was the author's intention, so better to delete than to try a redirect or keep and improve. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be an incomplete draft with no indication that, if finished, it would be a qualifying page. Appears to be a personal "theory"(?) by the page creator. Nothing of value. A MINOTAUR (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete an Existing "PmWiki" Wikipedia Article Titled Imagination philosophy, please check out the original PmWiki Article...The title "Imagination philosophy" in Wikipedia can not be linked or cited...this was only an attempt to hyperlink the title....This is/was an attempt to make an existing 'reference' page into a Article page...for citing and linking purposes only....This also was a response to 'Wiki discussion' about the Article "Imagination" combining related topics... If you can hyper link the title of the original, please do it. I'm sending this 'talk' to my sandbox for help, to make "Imagination philosophy" an Article some day. ThanksArnbiology (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please provide more information about the the original PmWiki Article, or perhaps a link? I did a search and forgive me but I couldn't find what you are talking about. I just want to be sure that this article is not a copy of the text from another site. That will be against the rules of Wikipedia. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)...The link to PmWiki... [1] Arnbiology (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

::Liz, Please "Delete" my "editing" of the 'original' PmWiki "Imagination philosophy" Article...Please do not "Delete" the original page; It is a existing PmWiki Thumbnail Article that I was trying to hyperlink the title of-for easier access to the Article. In the discussion here, there seems some confusion about whether this is a Article or an edit...it's my editing that should be "Deleted"...I am moving to a sandbox to learn about Hyperlinking 'PmWiki Thumbnail Article Titles'.Arnbiology (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the page, I think it fits speedy delete per G1. At this point, I believe that the state of the article is quite confusing and hard to make sense out of it, which fits the criteria of WP:G1. However, I think this is the very first article of a new user, so I am willing to !vote Draftify !voting speedy delete G1 per creator request. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Speedy Delete please...This was an existing wiki promotion Article in Wikipedia? Apparently now in conflict with Wikipedia. I did know this while I was trying to edit and link its title for easy access in Wikipedia. Arnbiology (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. TheLonelyPather (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Added speedy deletion template per your request. TheLonelyPather (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not an encyclopedia article. It looks like a new editor was just trying to organize their notes. Elspea756 (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to O'Day station. Liz Read! Talk! 19:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

O'Day, Manitoba[edit]

O'Day, Manitoba (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 that there was ever a community here. Natural Resources Canada lists it as a "railway point", so it's likely duplicate of O'Day station. –dlthewave ☎ 15:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to the associated census district 23 - please see the very lengthy station-by-station analysis of stations and associated “towns” on the railroad to Hudson’s Bay that I posted previously at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Silcox station. I spent hours researching this points along this line. This location is a signpost in the middle of deep boreal forest and bogs. There’s no town. It’s many kilometers from any settlement. The flag stop serves the occasional canoeist or trapper. Look at it on satellite imagery and you can see there was never anything there.
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 13:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A. B., I'm not sure I follow the logic of redirecting a rail point to a census district. –dlthewave ☎ 03:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is or was a railroad station article that should have been redirected to our article about the Winnipeg to Churchill train. (I’m on the road and using our awful mobile editor, so it’s hard to type here and check the status of the O’Day station article). There were a bunch of these “station” articles generated for signposts.
Then there town articles created for each signpost “station”. So far, those town articles that have been redirected have been redirected to the census division.
This is the O’Day “town” article.
All these articles are problematic nullities - stories of imaginary towns and railroad stations.
I’m flexible with how we get rid of them - redirect to the census division, railroad line, or train. Or, just delete outright.
I appreciate your work on this problem.
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My concern with the town articles is that there's no "town" source; someone took the same railway point entry and created both a town and railroad station article for each one. I'm flexible on the outcome as well, but I think they should be treated as duplicate railway points rather than towns/communities. Safe travels - I'll try not to bother you with anything too complicated! –dlthewave ☎ 03:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to O'Day station or Redirect to same, or Delete all seem reasonable options. My preference order is given. ++Lar: t/c 14:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Lamprey station. Liz Read! Talk! 19:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lamprey, Manitoba[edit]

Lamprey, Manitoba (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)

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 14:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing found except sites that apparently scrape from the WP article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the associated census district 23 - please see the very lengthy station-by-station analysis of stations and associated “towns” on the railroad to Hudson’s Bay that I posted previously at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Silcox station. I spent hours researching the points along this line. This location is a signpost in the middle of deep boreal forest and bogs. There’s no town. It’s many kilometers from any settlement. The flag stop serves the occasional canoeist or trapper. Look at it on satellite imagery and you can see there was never anything there.
The station should be redirected to the article for the train.
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 13:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that the location and station are separate entities to be directed to different targets. They use the exact same sources (Geographical Names Data Base and VIA Rail) which only mention the rail point/station. I think that these are all duplicates that should be redirected to the railroad if not deleted outright. –dlthewave ☎ 14:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Lamprey station or Redirect to same, or Delete all seem reasonable options. My preference order is given. ++Lar: t/c 14:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 15:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tintumon[edit]

Tintumon (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)

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

Weak delete. While I'm unfamiliar with the subject, I can't seem to find much. Granted, I feel there may be sources out there, so if anything winds up from others' searches, let me know and I'd be willing to change my vote. Pokelego999 (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Julie Tilsner[edit]

Julie Tilsner (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)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 15:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Ties That Bind (novel)[edit]

The Ties That Bind (novel) (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)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 15:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Thomas (Irish footballer)[edit]

Bob Thomas (Irish footballer) (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)

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and Ireland. UtherSRG (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:SPORTBASIC. The absolute minimum criteria of SPORTSBASIC is that "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources". That is not met. Nor, in my own BEFORE searches, can I find anything other than trivial passing mentions in fan blogs (like this scarcely fleeting mention). There's nothing to expand the article beyond the sub-stub we have (or support even basic biographical details like DOB, death, etc). Guliolopez (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A pretty common type of article, a sportsbio with references to either match programs or databases. From my searches, I could not find anything that comes close to SIGCOV. ULPS (talk • contribs) 03:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probable keep I think it's highly probable this is an important historic figure in Irish football. I found one source, although it is The Sun! [18], But winning all those honours means something. I believe this is all about digging deep and finding those offline sources. He clearly seems an important figure with two clubs of Bohemian F.C. and Shelbourne F.C., I did also have a dig at google. But it's a tough one for sure. But if this is deleted then this is really sad for wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buike[edit]

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Jamiebuba (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete With these Nigerian sites that appear to be "pay to play" in what are otherwise RS, I'm unsure how we can judge a truly notable artist from the puff they publish. That said, this appears to be puff pieces and I'm not seeing that this artist has charted or won any awards of note. Social media personality is likely the clincher for non-notablity, but I'm willing to revisit if others have a different argument. Oaktree b (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Let's analyze whether the subject, Chibuike Promise Obi (stage name Buike), meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musicians:
    Published Works: The article includes references from notable sources such as The Sun Nigeria, Punch Newspaper, The Guardian Nigeria, Vanguard News, and more. These sources provide coverage of Buike's music career, releases, and achievements. But according to @Oaktree b, they might just be "pay to play" checkY
    Chart Performance and Record Certifications: There is no mention of Buike having a single or album on a national music chart, or having a record certified gold or higher. ☒N
    Concert Tours: While the article mentions Buike's music being streamed and on playlists, there is no indication of non-trivial coverage of an international or national concert tour.☒N
    Major Record Label Albums: The article mentions Buike releasing songs, but it does not specify whether these releases were on major record labels or significant indie labels.☒N
    Prominence of Style or Local Scene: There is no mention of Buike being one of the most prominent representatives of a particular music style or being the most prominent in a local music scene.☒N
    Major Music Awards or Competition Wins: There is no mention of Buike winning or being nominated for major music awards, and there is no information about him winning a major music competition.☒N
    Music for Notable Media Works: There is no information about Buike's music being featured in notable media works.☒N
    Radio or Television Exposure: There is no mention of Buike being placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network, nor is there mention of him being a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment.☒N Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're asking that we delete it? That's the conclusion I draw from your discussion above. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://sunnewsonline.com/with-music-nigerian-entertainer-buike-is-on-to-something/ No Reads like a press release. Not attributed to any author, potentially a paid piece. ? Reliable only according to this brief discussion; this was never analysed to properly establish reliability. Yes Just barely ✘ No
https://schoolnews.info/buike-biography-net-worth/amp/ Yes No No indication of reliability or editorial oversight Yes ✘ No
https://punchng.com/odd-jobs-funded-my-music-career-chibuike-obi/?amp No Basically an interview ? Same as source 1 Yes ✘ No
https://newtelegraphng.com/blossoming-music-career-chibuike-obi-shares-grass-to-grace-story/ No Reads like a press release. Not attributed to any author, potentially a paid piece. ? Yes ✘ No
https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2023/07/03/singer-buike-storms-music-scene-with-boss-debut-single No Promotional / paid ? Yes Just barely ✘ No
https://guardian.ng/arts-2/in-boss-buike-speaks-on-self-confidence/ No Likely promotional, see this discussion No Not for promo pieces Yes ✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2023/07/nigerian-artist-influencer-buike-strides-into-afrobeats/ No Reads like a press release. Not attributed to any author, potentially a paid piece. ? Same as source 1 Yes Just barely ✘ No
https://newsghana.com.gh/nigerian-rapper-and-songwriter-buike-on-to-something-with-music/?amp No Likely a paid piece No Allows submissions from anyone, unclear editorial oversight Yes Just barely ✘ No
https://newsghana.com.gh/nigeria-musician-and-entertainer-buike-lights-up-music-scene-with-boss/ No Likely a paid piece No Allows submissions from anyone, unclear editorial oversight Yes ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

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

  • Delete. None of the available sources are suitable for establishing notability; it's clear that the majority are paid promotional pieces. Accordingly, the subject fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:BASIC, as we don't have sufficient appropriate sources to establish notability under those guidelines. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 10:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Correctional pedagogy[edit]

Correctional pedagogy (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)

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

  • Delete. My analysis:
- The article itself is unsourced and badly formatted. An argument of WP:TNT could apply.
- I did a google search on "correctional pedagogy". My search results were full of "prison pedagogy" or something similar. However, this article talks about a pedagogy for children with developmental disabilities. The article thus fails notability. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per original. Essay (rather literally: seems to read like a school essay being copy and pasted) regarding phrase with seemingly no significant/real use in the world. A MINOTAUR (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Characters of The Legend of Zelda#Impa. ✗plicit 14:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Impa[edit]

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

Merge to Characters of The Legend of Zelda#Impa, per Zx. I'd like to keep this around, but the current sourcing state just isn't doing it, and I don't believe there's enough SIGCOV to buff the article's current state per a search. Ping me if something turns up and I'd be willing to change my vote, though. Pokelego999 (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, plus creator self admits a lack of coverage. NegativeMP1 (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Characters of The Legend of Zelda. Article relies on poor-quality video game content-farming "journalism" that doesn't demonstrate notability. – dudhhr talk contribs 23:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Sirius XM Radio channels#Former channels. ✗plicit 14:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

XM Deportivo[edit]

XM Deportivo (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)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to E!. ✗plicit 14:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

E! Entertainment Radio[edit]

E! Entertainment Radio (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 secondary coverage to meet any of the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any material that can be sourced into E!, otherwise delete. A satellite radio channel devoted entirely to running the audio of E!'s television programming does not seem likely to be independently notable of E! proper. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to E! – No indication of standalone notability under WP:GNG. I don't think we should merge any of this content given that it's completely unsourced. A redirect seems fine, though. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 10:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Majid Sajadi[edit]

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment just realised there is an open AfD for this from yesterday so there is clearly some gaming going on with recreation. Mccapra (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Links from the Tehran Times used in the article are about the Sports Minister, not this person. I'm not seeing notability; this is likely PROMO. I can't find mention of this individual in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment unable to understand how come 2 AFD’s are existing at the same time? Also this article was already deleted under A7, so I requested speedy under the same, and that tag got removed by some other user as creator can’t remove it. Also it’s poorly sources and absolute failure of GNG Wikipedian (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was speedy deleted but immediately recreated Mccapra (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pemba (red panda)[edit]

Pemba (red panda) (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 notable for anything except maybe dying unexpectedly, and even that received minimal news coverage. Groupthink (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Biology. Groupthink (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete appears to be a common red panda name [19]. I was thinking a redirect to the zoo, but there isn't coverage for this animal. Oaktree b (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. signed, Rosguill talk 03:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nut hand[edit]

Nut hand (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 footnotes for most of the content, references to a few websites on etymology or poker glossaries (two out of three seem to be dead or broken anyway). The article doesn't make the case for its topic being notable, and my BEFORE just shows some mentions in passing. Suggest redirecting to Glossary_of_poker_terms#N. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

—siroχo 05:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I won't repeat siro's masterful source analysis, which is convincing. I will note that nom's claim that the article doesn't make a case for its notability is irrelevant. Notability isn't related to the state of sources in an article but to the availability of sources in the world. In addition to Siro's work a quick Gscholar search shows there are many technical and mathematical discussions of this key concept. Central and Adams (talk) 06:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. The so-called "sigcov" isn't. You want to have the nuts, or better yet, the absolute nuts, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTGUIDE. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a guide, but it can most certainly cite reliable guides that explain why a concept is notable or verify facts necessary to the article. We cite textbooks frequently, we cite independent software texts, etc. Even the article as it stands, such as it needs to be improved, is not a guide. Game-related concepts can be notable without requiring our article to be a guide on how to use the concept, compare this article to en passant, checkmate, batting (baseball), three pointer, field goal, etc. —siroχo 10:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom - seems to be a WP:DICDEF. I don't see sigcov in the links either - just usage of the term, meaning that adding them to the article would be WP:SYNTH. SportingFlyer T·C 13:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Given they are all referring to the same concept, we can attribute and quote without drawing further conclusions of our own to avoid issues of SYNTH. —siroχo 10:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep the term is too complex to be a strict dictionary definition (at the least nuts vs. absolute nuts, vs. the (mis)use as "best hand possible hand right now" needs a lot of words and probably examples). And the GNG is pretty easily met as almost any poker strategy book is going to spend time explaining the concept and how it impacts strategy (e.g. [20]). And there are tons of such books. (As a note, in context it's generally just called "the nuts" rather than "nut hand"). Hobit (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems like a standard encyclopedic term. KatoKungLee (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Redirect (or selectively merge) to glossary of poker terms. Doesn't really need more than a paragraph. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Imo it probably needs at least 2 or 3. The nuts, absolute nuts, and current nuts would all need to be covered. A bit about how they are each played and the etymology should also be there given we have plenty of RSes that cover those topics... that's going to be more than a paragraph... Hobit (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTGUIDE is NOTSALIENT. The sources discussed above contain mathematically based definitions and analyses of the topics mentioned by Hobit rather than pure unanalyzed advice such as one would expect in a guide. Central and Adams (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a very detailed article on checkmate. Do you feel that runs afoul of NOTGUIDE? Again a lot of sources exist and have been provided. Hobit (talk) 07:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Apologies in advance, I don't mean to BLUDGEON, but I'm truly confused by the direction this discussion has gone at this point. I refer to articles like Check (chess) or Checkmate, which are reasonable analogues in chess. Those could be redirected to a glossary, and those rely on guides and even provide a small amount of guidance as is necessary for understanding of the concept. But we recognize these concepts as being notable in their own right such that a mere glossary entry would not do them service. This concept has been a foundational aspect of poker for decades, and is constantly referenced in many forms of literature related to poker. You'll rarely find a poker broadcast without the announcers mentioning the concept. Beyond what folks above have mentioned about in-depth analysis beyond what a guide would offer, the term and concept are both analyzed beyond the game, and beyond poker culture itself, for example:
  • Here's a cultural analysis of the terms influence at poker tables [21]
  • Here's a text that explains the concept in-depth, and then uses the concept to analyze public policy decisions [22]
Even within the game aspect of Poker, there's also substantial disagreement in how to play the nuts -- when to bet or raise, and how much. (just one quick example from proquest [23]) We can provide tertiary coverage of this concept highlighting the disagreement among professionals and those who have analyzed the game, beyond what glossary entry could accomplish. If it seems like I've only provided a handful of sources in this discussion, I apologize, I have yet to conduct an exhaustive search for sources, because it's infeasible given how many reliable sources exist for the subject.
I cannot see how we'd be improving the state of Wikipedia by redirecting this article.
—siroχo 18:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a counterpoint - considering I can't access those sources apart from the abstract, where the term is not used at all in either article - a Google Scholar search brings up precious little about the term, about 16 hits when adding the word poker, mostly definitional, excluding one about plywood. Considering the discussion is about whether this should have a stand-alone page, that it's at the moment completely definitional, and fits neatly into a glossary of poker terms, I see no great loss from redirecting this. SportingFlyer T·C 20:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your perspective and explanation, I have a better understanding of the argument now. FYI, you should have access to ProQuest via WP:TWL —siroχo 07:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this is a case for WP:TNT. If you found some good sources, perhaps you could try to rewrite this from scratch. What we have is a mess with three footnotes including "Etymology Dictionary's entry for "nuts" and "The Phrase Finder's entry for "dog's bollocks""." Seriously... a classic case of TNT needed, IMHO. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would have no issue if someone wants to WP:HEY the page or recreate a better page if this isn't kept, conditional on better sourcing being found. SportingFlyer T·C 12:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think comparing this to entries like Check (chess) or Checkmate is useful, because both of those have extended use outside chess, even though their meaning derives from the game. On the other hand, one could argue that the use of "nuts" has an analogue in daily speech - "Have you seen Dave's new car. It's the nuts!" which goes back further than the article's claim of late 20th century (useful link with examples back to 1917 here. So there's an argument that the article could be expanded on that basis, since there is at least some real-world link. Black Kite (talk) 09:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we sure the usage of that phrase in speech has to do with poker and not ... other things? An etymology dictionary talks about it being slang for dual male body parts. SportingFlyer T·C 09:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Article may meet GNG per siro's source assessment, but the citations throughout the article are far too sparse. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a reminder, WP:N is the bar for inclusion of a topic. And that is about sources that exist, not ones in the article. Hobit (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't "the topic is notable but the article is far from being in an acceptable state at the moment" precisely what draftifying is for? TompaDompa (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see WP:TNT. Sometimes starting from scratch is easier than telling folks - go and improve this mess. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is not in a great state but it is better than nothing. A redirect to glossary of poker terms with a selective merge is also acceptable, but not in my opinion strictly necessary. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Keep. Like siroxo, I'm a little confused that this discussion is still ongoing. WP:GNG is clearly met, so the topic is appropriately notable. This does not need to be draftified to be cleaned up either. There seems to be no real policy (or guideline) basis for redirecting or deleting this, so why would we? Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 10:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The folk etymology is shaky... but the first part of the article stands alone well, and per the analysis of notability above, it seems like this is an easy call to keep it. ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Should never have been relisted once much less twice. A merge can be discussed on the talk if needed, but there is clearly not consensus to delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Minato Ward elevator accident[edit]

2006 Minato Ward elevator accident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Keep. Meets WP:PERSISTENCE, the most applicable notability guideline for this type of thing. Coverage more than 5 years after event: [24][25], ~9 years after [26], coverage ~10 years after [27]. Current consensus allows for events to be covered by Wikipedia articles. Beyond WP:N, WP:V (and WP:NOT), all of which this article meets, we don't treat topics as encyclopedic or otherwise. If you think the article can be improved, either do so, tag it, or discuss it in the talk page. —siroχo 02:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Japan. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My first instinct was that this is just another random non-notable news story that someone made an article for, and that's probably what it was when the article was created. But the sources provided by Siroxo suggest that this has since had long term effects in Japan and has become a regular subject of study. I wouldn't object to a merge if there's an appropriate target, but I don't see Elevators in Japan being a viable article any time soon. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We could merge the information into List of elevator accidents, because while almost no single accident might be notable enough for expansion into its own article, the whole collection and how safety practices changed in the elevator industry might be worth noting. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 13:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to University of California, Irvine. Liz Read! Talk! 00:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

University of California, Washington Center[edit]

University of California, Washington Center (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 refs on the page for many years. Seems unlikely that a university internship programme is notable - I can't find refs that would meet the GNG. JMWt (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I don't see a consensus here but this is not the type of discussion that I think will be clarified by additional time gained through relistings. The only thing that seems clear to me is that this article needs some serious work. Whether or not it is renamed can be determined on the article talk page. If this article isn't improved, I can see it returning to AFD for a second evaluation. Liz Read! Talk! 05:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States[edit]

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

It's on this and similar articles.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This issue has been raised at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Movement_to_reform_sex_offender_laws_in_the_United_States. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge to Sex offender registration. Indeed, not a single source mentions the word "movement" in their heading, and GS has only a single hit for the "Movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States". This might be a notable topic, and perhaps this movement is better known under a different name, but as written, it suffers from reliance on news sources. This type of topic should be written based on academic literature from social movement studies and similar. WP:TNT applies to some degree, but I'd prefer SOFTDELETE approach - something from this might be usuable for other articles or for a future, academically-focused rewrite. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been mulling over a response to this, and while I agree with you merge is probably the best possible outcome here I'm stuck on a few points:
    • while there is not a lot of support for there being a movement that seems to be semantics as there is a persistent set of organizations (see[28]) and activities aimed at the goal of reform;
    • this article describes a USA-based phenomenon and set of actors, but whats described in sex offender registration is international with a rambling policy argument at the end; these would have to be reconciled because adding a "calls for reform" section would overlap some of the policy arguments;
    • there's a benefit to having a single-purpose article because it would allow discussion, for example, organizations like National_Association_for_Rational_Sexual_Offense_Laws which differs in its non-support of changes to age-of-consent laws, and as an umbrella organization doesn't suffer from the same notability issues as the two other orgs which were nominated for deletion by the same nominator[29][30]
    I would note there's more than a hint of POV-pushing in the deletion nomination: @How I could just edit a wiki article was registered on 16 July as what seems to be an SPA relating to sex offender registration laws, now blocked[31] for unspecified abuse apparently based on evidence of sockpuppetry. We should be cautious about letting AfD become an instrument for suppressing discussion of unpopular activity, especially when the core complaint is one of article quality and not the substance of that activity. Oblivy (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Back in 2016, there were three articles split off from the main article Sex offender registries in the United States. The first is Effectiveness of sex offender registration policies in the United States, the second is Constitutionality of sex offender registries in the United States, third was Movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States. There was a previous discussion Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_57#Sex_offender_registries_in_the_United_States, but this link no longer works because it was archived (if there an easy way to find archived discussions, please drop a note on my talk page!) Denaar (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC) (found it with the search bar on the noticeboard) Denaar (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    comment - all three pov forks were written by the same person, and have the same pov, which matches their talk page. I think we should probably delete them all and let someone recreate them from an academic view if they'd like How I could just edit a wiki article (talk) 06:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Rename - There really are efforts to reform sex offender laws, I've heard about it in news reports, and I think some groups are reasonable, some groups border on advocacy, and I don't see any reason not to report on them. At the same time, "Movement" is the wrong term, but it was an attempt to describe the contents of the spin off article. I also think this needs to be re-added to the main article, with a "see also", it needs to be clearly noted as a spin off, with a "see also" back to the main article as well. Otherwise a merge back into the Sex offender registries in the United States article seems appropriate. "Sex offender law reform in the United States" seem more neutral as a spin off term? Denaar (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support keep/rename if the name was right -- not sure about reform as there's not much prospect of reform just calls for it. But the article itself is out of date and lacks a section laying out positions. An argument section was deleted at some point in the past but it was short. If recreated, such as sectioin could collect some of the complaints - stigma, difficulty accessing affordable housing, this[32] issue with joining Nextdoor that I found by searching WP comments, conflict with notions of rehabilitation, etc. It could also host "academic" material other commenters have suggested is appropriate for this article. I saw something about controversy over the NARSO annual meeting (IIRC mayor sent them a letter of support) which got press coverage and could help bolster notability.
    It's nearly 5 days since the AfD was brought - it looks like merge is the frontrunner. Is there a way forward to try to WP:HEY the article so people will support keep/rename? I can't say I'm super excited about working with something that looks like reducing consequences for rapists and child abusers, but this issue does seem to actually implicate fairness/effectiveness and the nomination itself strikes me as POV in the wrong direction. Oblivy (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm leaning toward "Keep with the right name" if we can find one - and thank you for the WP:HEY - I do think the article needs to be updated, normally I'd work on it but I just committed to another big project. I think a student created a lot of this, they aren't editing much anymore, and so the information is out of date - how much activism is going? Did any of it work? Many USA States already have Romeo and Juliet laws to carve out exceptions to the law. Denaar (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename I have done some digging and found that on 1 July 2023 the 7.8Kb arguments section was blanked by a now-blocked SPA, A person from nowhere. Again, this is a checkuser block so I can't see the evidence, but that editor has a strikingly similar edit history to How I could just edit a wiki article. Here's the edit summary:

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

I restored that section and edited it, adding a few scholarly cites (there are A LOT of academic sources out there). Most of what was deleted was not WP:OR but citations to independent media articles and while I haven't had a chance to look at all the cites the ones I did supported the text. I took out the word "movement" wherever it appeared except the lead and infobox. There was some (not a lot of) POV in the text and I've tried to tone it down, but if there's a balance issue then I would think opponents' voices should be easy to find.
The remaining question would be what to rename it to. Although @ Denaar suggested ""Sex offender law reform in the United States" perhaps ""Calls for sex offender registry reform in the United States" would be more accurate. I'm open on this one.
To the closing admin As we're at the close-or-relist date, I'd suggest this be relisted on grounds of WP:HEY
One more comment: looking at the history of these blocked editors I found they and another editor recently blanked a bunch of what looks like good sources on Effectiveness of sex offender registration policies in the United States (hat-tip to Denaar for mentioning the history of this article above). I'm worn out from thinking about POV -- grownups can talk about difficult/controversial subjects without being advocates, but for sure there are balance/undue/advocacy issues at play. I'm not going to tinker with that article now, but at some point it should probably be merged with this article. Will see how this discussion goes first, and maybe (maybe) drop a note on the talk page.Oblivy (talk) 08:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and restored the article Effectiveness of sex offender registration policies in the United States to the most recent version prior to the blanking edits, since the edits seemed to be POV-pushing and were made by two accounts banned for sockpuppeting. Vontheri (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete as a coatrack. Portions of the content may be salvageable and merged into any of a number of relevant articles, but a detailed review of the article as it stands leaves little doubt that this is a POV fork for the purposes of advancing a particular narrative regarding laws regarding these kinds of offenders. The positions are not contextualized within the larger issue in an encyclopedic manner and particular statements are clearly cherry-picked to advance the arguments of a particular minority activist viewpoint. It's not remotely neutral and it violates a bevy of policy points regarding forks of this nature.
    As a side note related to the appropriateness of the article (but independently of concern in any event), does anyone else find that image to be a major concern. Let's assume for the moment the license on the photo itself is valid: I'm still very concerned about our using the picture of a child (even limited/non-identifiable portions of a child) on an article such as this. The subject matter of that photo feeds into the serious concerns about the neutrality of this content as a whole, but quite aside from that, without having clear documentation of a release to use a child's image (again, even a partial image), I'd say we have ethical and policy issues quite separate from any validity of the CC particulars. SnowRise let's rap 07:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the image, I had reinstated the image box as it existed before the section containing it was blanked by two now-blocked accounts, one of which brought this nomination. I did consider the propriety of including the picture from a privacy perspective, but the likelihood of identifying the child seemed pretty remote. Nevertheless I can see your point and have removed the image. It's not used anywhere else on the site so if you feel strongly about the image itself perhaps it should be deleted.
    I'm afraid I don't understand how this fits within the COATRACK essay as it's pretty short and focused on one topic. As far as cherrypicking, the article is about reform so it will naturally focus on those views. Certainly there are other anti-reform views out there and those could be added. There's no "anti-minoritarian" policy on WP, and WP:NOTCENSORED seems to preclude such arguments. Oblivy (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there is any reasonably real danger of the child being identified, as his face was blocked in the image. However, I do think the image was from a non-neutral POV. I also had a problem with the image's description saying the toddler was protesting. I don't think a child that young (he looked about 2 or maybe 3 at the most) would be developmentally capable of truly understanding what he was "protesting", and certainly wouldn't have been old enough to write the sign himself. He was being used by someone else (presumably his parent(s)) who was protesting. It was right to remove the image in the spirit of neutral point-of-view, but not for reasons of privacy concern.
    I think removing the image was a good first step to improve the article. Deleting the article would be unnecessary and detrimental to the encyclopedia. It's a notable topic that should have an article. The article needs work, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. We can't delete an article just because it's about a topic we don't like or have strong objections to. Vontheri (talk) 11:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree 100%. Oblivy (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article may need some editing for NPOV, but the fact is that such a movement does exist, and whether we like it or not, it is notable and should be described and documented. Vontheri (talk) 05:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But does any sort of organised movement exist as the title suggests? It would need to be TNT'd in order to be remade into an acceptable article. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That depends how one interprets the word "movement". Just how "organized" does something have to be before it becomes a "movement"? There are high-profile people (at least high-profile within relevant circles) who are calling for such reform, for example Patty Wetterling. I would be fine with renaming the article, but deleting it entirely seems detrimental and unnecessary. Vontheri (talk) 04:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Addition to my previous comment: Also, does the word "movement" necessarily imply "organized movement"? A movement can be a movement without having central organization. Otherwise, the term "organized movement" would be redundant and unnecessary to exist as a term. The title "Movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States" only implies that there are people advocating for it, it doesn't necessarily imply organization.
    That said, I am fine with the name being changed as long as it is to a relevant and unbiased name. I just don't think the article should be deleted. Vontheri (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I found an organization that should confirm the existence of a "movement": Women Against Registry. Vontheri (talk) 08:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Keep I think this movement is significant and notable enough to deserve an article. GeodeRose (talk) 06:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added two more sources to the article, including an opposing view. As noted in the first relisting comment, questions about renaming the article need to wait although I agree with @Vontheri the meaning term movement is fairly expansive.
  • Comment After reading the article completely and more in-depth, I am more convinced than ever that the article should not be deleted and that it really isn't even problematic in its current state. Sure, it can use some work, but so can most Wikipedia articles. Given the topic of the article, of course it is going to focus more on arguments against sex offender registries/laws. There could and should be some more counter-balance given to the article, but it's really not anywhere nearly as radical or as biased as was initially implied. The main issue was the overly-dramatic picture of the toddler, but it has now been removed. Let's all remember that the article was nominated for deletion by a now-banned account, and if you look at the banned accounts (note plural) edit histories, then it doesn't take long to see that this editor was on Wikipedia primarily, if not solely, to make changes to fit their personal political views. Vontheri (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A bit off-topic at an AfD but proper consideration should be given to whether we need four articles about U.S. SORs. The 7-year old forking argument is a distraction. But something is wrong here, not about POV/undue but it's bad to have things scattered all over the place. Constitutionality article has a long discussion about effectiveness data, for example).
    An argument could be made for merging some of it into Sex offender registries in the United_States but that's already 3500-odd words, of which 800-odd relate to the three forked topics. Effectiveness is 2500 words, constitutionality is 2150, this one is 640. Even with some trimming de-forking is likely to end up at 8000. I could easily see merging effectiveness into this one (subject to post-AfD rename away from "movement") then keeping constitutionality as its own article.
    When this AfD is over I'll put a comment on the talk page to try to get some consensus (not ruling out being bold, but this topic trips some red lights for folks). Oblivy (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm mixed on that one. On the one hand, the four topics do have discernible differences that could merit separate articles, but there is also much overlap. It's a borderline case, but I could see an argument for merging this article with "Effectiveness", although I'm not quite sure what an appropriate title for the article would be in that case. I think "constitutionality" is probably distinct enough that it should remain as its own article, but if it is merged, it would probably make the most sense to merge it into the "movement" article. I think "constitionality" and "effectiveness" are distinct enough from each other that they deserve separate articles; but that creates a bit of a fallacious sort of situation in which "effectiveness" and "movement" could be merged together, and "constitutionality" could be merged with "movement", but "constitutionality" would not be compatible enough to be merged with "effectiveness". All three of those can't be logically satisfied.
    It is unfortunate that so many people can't put their emotional reactions (or "red lights", as you put it) to a topic aside and neutrally and factually work to document phenomena and build an encyclopedia, not only in regards to this topic but in regards to so many varied topics that people have strong feelings about, though this topic is probably one of the most severely affected by emotions in that way. Vontheri (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comment. This isn't quite the right place for this discussion, but I wanted to raise it. Hopefully this will end as a keep or no-consensus, and then we can discuss how to put the articles on a good footing (and after they are cleaned up and merged if that’s possible, candidly, I'm going to go work on something else) Oblivy (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I only see two votes for "delete". Unless something radically changes over the next few days, then the article won't be deleted. Once this sock-puppet/POV-warrior initiated time wasting is over, then we can work on actually figuring out a direction forward for the article, as you said. Vontheri (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vontheri’s comments. There is more than enough sources to support this subject. Elttaruuu (talk) 11:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. This AFD discussion has been relisted twice and still no additional sources have been brought in this conversation to demonstrate notability exists. Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Rennert[edit]

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

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

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Mesoamerican writing systems. Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Writing in the early Americas[edit]

Writing in the early Americas (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)

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 11:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valiollah Khakdan[edit]

Valiollah Khakdan (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)

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎ with snow. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 21:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chohong Museum of Finance[edit]

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

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

The result was keep‎. First, I appreciate the detailed deletion rationale provided by the nominator. I wish this happened more often. However, the overwhelming consensus here is that this article should be Kept, however it needs a lot of work, perhaps even a full rewrite. This point of view to Keep was strengthened by additional sources found by participants during this discussion which hopefully will address some of the concerns of the nominator. Liz Read! Talk! 04:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sans (Undertale)[edit]

Sans (Undertale) (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)

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

  • In appearances; Most of the plot summary is completely unsourced. As for the sources that were there, 1 is citing something related to Papyrus, 2 is just fan theories that don't give very much, and 3-8 may be the definition of a WP:REFBOMB. All it does is demonstrate that Sans got a Mii costume in Smash and his boss fight was remade in Fortnite (odd thing to document in a section meant for official appearances). This REFBOMB takes up a fourth of the articles citations (6/24).
  • In Development, literally nothing is cited to the character himself. 9-12 are for Megalovania.

In Reception:

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

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

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

  • Keep. Looking at Scholars, I found [33] and [34]. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 04:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how I wasn't able to find these when I looked, these seem like they could be useful and one even says a lot about Flowey. A broader consensus is probably still needed though, and I still question how much could truly be done. NegativeMP1 (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The scholarly sources are very strong evidence Sans is notable due to his 4th wall-breaking nature in a similar manner as Flowey, even putting aside the Megalovania popularity. I don't have any prejudice towards a merge to a character list if one were created, as the sourcing is still fairly weak (IMO, even the merged Toriel was stronger source-wise) but deletion? Certainly not. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Recent finding of scholarly sources should be enough to hold its notability. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the scholarly sources. I think because Sans is a large internet meme, the article has plenty of WP:SIGCOV, but there are a lot of unnecessary sources. Conyo14 (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The "Reception" section of the article should be rewritten to remove the nonsense fanart gallery and "this guy dressed up as him" sources and replace them with the actual sources providing scholarly analysis, but the sources are out there, so deletion should be off the table. No prejudice against any subsequent discussion of creating a "Characters of Undertale" article to merge this to in the future, but as that article does not exist yet, Keeping is the best option now. Rorshacma (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note List of Undertale and Deltarune characters has now been created by myself, so make of that what you will as a possible target. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Scholary sources for video games, including one which looks written by a non-academic/student, with low journal impact keeping WP:FANCRUFT on the site? Not buying it. We can redirect to the character list page as a compromise. SportingFlyer T·C 12:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I still agree with the nom's source analysis, and only one of the scholarly sources found might count towards WP:GNG as one wasn't written by someone who had completed a degree. We still have no sources to keep this article on, and no one else has identified any which might. SportingFlyer T·C 12:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The existence of poor quality and unreliable secondary sources amidst other mainstream sources sufficient to establish significant coverage should not endanger an article. That said, as a comment, caution should be exercised when relying on in-depth academic papers to establish notability particularly where the scholarship has the tenor of primary research. I don't think those papers alone would strongly contribute to a justification to keep an article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes GNG based on sources.★Trekker (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rewrite There are some sources here underutilized, and a more thorough rewrite focusing on Sans himself would yield better results. Right now as the article is written it's propping itself up on Megalovania's notability which isn't doing it favors.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rewrite The article is in need of some TLC, but the character itself is notable. The argument that a lot of the sources "are about the boss fight, not the character" does not hold water with me, because you can't separate one from the other - each of the encounters in Undertale is tailored to the characters in them. ReneeWrites (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The point I was trying to convey when I made that argument was that the sources didn't talk much about the character itself outside of the boss fight, which the article needed more of. NegativeMP1 16:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sans appears to be covered enough to meet SIGCOV. I've also found some interesting info from these books. SWinxy (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep For the reasons ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ pointed out, and the fact he is frequently cited on prominent gaming magazines. Seekallknowledge (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Luxembourg women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 04:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anouchka Besch[edit]

Anouchka Besch (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)

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

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

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

Nayelis López[edit]

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

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

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

Yelena Cardeso[edit]

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

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

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

2023 Zim Afro T10[edit]

2023 Zim Afro T10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, South Africa, and Zimbabwe. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A redirect with a very partial merge of the dates and venue, result, leading run scorer and wicket taker perhaps - i.e. a two to three sentence paragraph - to Zim Afro T10 would seem to be a possibility as well. I can see a delete, but perhaps redirect will help stop recreation? Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • That depends on whether Zim Afro T10 is kept or not. If that article is redirected, then redirecting this would be inappropriate. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, quite. It took two sentences to summarise the first edition there by the way. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The references seem to indicate that it passes WP:GNG. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which specific references show significant coverage of this particular season that warrants a separate season article? Joseph2302 (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm with Joseph here, I really don't see great quality references throwing a tonne of coverage at the tournament. I see Indian fan sites, a couple of articles at Wisden that are marginal in terms of GNG coverage (floodlights is the best one), tweets and YouTube, but not a lot of substance. I wouldn't usually be tempted to do that "source analysis table" bs that people do, but this is really marginal for me Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep easily passes WP:GNG. It's a professional tournament which was significantly covered throughout the week and a half it ran in places like the Chronicle [35]. SportingFlyer T·C 15:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage from Zimbabwean newspapers. Cursory google shows international coverage from The Indian Express, Sportskeeda and india.com, none of which are exactly small sites and shows significant coverage both inside and outwith Zimbabwe. MsJoat (talk) 11:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should have this article merged into the Zim Afro T10 article, and as more seasons get played, have them integrated into the article. --WellThisIsTheReaper Grim 16:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Would be good to have less encyclopedic nonsense like these articles. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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


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

The result was no consensus‎. I closed the previous AFD as Redirect which was later undone. This time, there is more advocacy for Keeping this article. Those seeking to Redirect this article can propose this on the article talk page but this discussion needs to be closed. Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Hill, 9th Marquess of Downshire[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Nicholas Hill, 9th Marquess of Downshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

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

  • Keep – Yes, never a member of the House of Lords, so it's just a question of WP:N and the GNG. Agreed that Who's Who does not count towards notability, but the articles in The Yorkshire Post do. The Tatler article does in fact mention the subject, as "the Marquess of Downshire" is this one. Not much there, but it verifies something in the article, which is what references do. Debrett's is independent of the subject and has editors. As I see it, he meets the test of WP:N, which is about verifiability and not importance. If the page is not kept, it is all relevant to Marquess of Downshire, a notable subject, and should be merged there, with a redirect, as the present peer is an integral part of that history. Moonraker (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with Debrett's is the lack of WP:SIGCOV: you get a name, title, DOB and descendants on p. 2999, and that's it. This is routine information, hardly "more than a trivial mention". Even The Guardian agrees that this source is "a bible stripped back to its begats. Outsiders can be frustrated by the lack of the colourful narratives that they suspect must be behind a lot of the begetting." Debrett's also cannot count towards the GNG because it is not a secondary source: it's a tertiary source, much like other reference work. Pilaz (talk). 10:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Family coverage on Wikipedia should only be included to support an already notable topic, so it seems odd to consider a WP:TERTIARY source like Debrett's with no SIGCOV enough. Pilaz (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, one local piece with non-trivial coverage is not enough for GNG. Edit: Redirect. JoelleJay (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay you agree then that The Yorkshire Post is non-trivial coverage. It is a regional rather than local newspaper, and the GNG does not distinguish between national, regional, and local sources, so the question is whether it is a reliable source, and it meets all the tests. Pilaz says it is "significant coverage". And then there is Debrett's Peerage, which has biographies as well as genealogy. Pilaz does not dispute its reliability, and I agree, but there is a misunderstanding in the words "passing mention", as Debrett's has nearly half a page about the subject of the article, which is not trivial. NB, what the GNG requires is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and defines "significant coverage" as — "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Moonraker (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since you seem to have access to it, what does Debrett's actually say beyond his genealogy, and is that info non-routine? WP:N requires article subjects also pass NOT. JoelleJay (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay it's a short biography. I would say more, but the copy I have access to is in a library in Oxford and I am in a different place now. Moonraker (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

  • Keep per Moonraker and from what I gather this is an active and notable person, much of the deletionist view is nitpicking about the importance and nature of sources. His activities are better sourced than the political careers of some elected hereditary peers in the House of Lords. Killuminator (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, if we are nitpicking, you can tell us which sources help satisfy the GNG. Unless you are just arguing WP:ITSNOTABLE + WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Pilaz (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could have done that but I'm not going to given your second sentence. Killuminator (talk) 04:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It could have been helpful for the !keep case, because right now the rough consensus is that there's only one source which passes the GNG, which is the Yorkshire Post. Pilaz (talk) 09:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No one seems to disagree that The Yorkshire Post piece is solid, and Moonraker says Debrett's Peerage has a half-page biography of the subject. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Not a satisfying conclusion for anyone, I might imagine, but a consensus has not formed, and I do not have confidence that any further relisting would lead to one. While there have been substantial concerns raised whether this list can be appropriately scoped, there is not enough support to form a consensus for outright deletion. I would very much encourage the participants here to discuss ways to address the concerns many editors raised during the discussion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Islamist terrorist attacks[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

  • Delete/Redirect per nom and also WP:OR. It's a narrow scope that promotes the idea that a religion is a notable topic from the main list. Conyo14 (talk) 05:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If there are problems with original research or accidental inclusions of unrelated events, then that should mean the article ought to be fixed, not that the page as a whole should be deleted. --Dynamo128 (talk) 09:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: Agree. Just a casual sampling of the entries here immediately shows the WP:OR disaster at work. The first entry is on some communal riots that are far removed from the sense of "Islamist terror attack"; the next two are by the Black September Organisation, which was a nationalist, not Islamist group. That's a huge WP:V fail just three entries in. And yes, any historical attacks that are indeed notable enough will appear on the main list of terror incidents; indeed, I'm sure that actually Islamist examples are already more than amply represented there, such that this list provides no additional value. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect. The term "Islamist terrorism" is really problematic, because it suggests a direct connection between a religion and terrorism. Islam as a whole rejects terrorism, as do all major religions. Just as it would be anti-Semitic to refer to an incident of Israeli settler violence against Palestinians as "Jewish terrorism," it's Islamophobic to refer to terrorism by a Palestinian or Saudi as "Islamist terrorism". NightHeron (talk) 10:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: See Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks where I agreed with concerns that the Munich massacre was motivated more by nationalist extremism than religion. It isn't in doubt that some people have done crazy or wicked things and believed that religion justified it, but some of the entries here are a poorly sourced hotchpotch.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    More than some by my assessment. It seems there are a lot of entries where there is a presumption about a person's religion based on their nationality and therefore their motives. AlanStalk 11:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While 9/11 is clearly Islamic extremism, I have to agree that there is serious confusion and uncertainty over what is really a right-wing, left-wing or Islamist terrorist attack, resulting in a lot of WP:OR, and in the case of the first two aforementioned articles, tit-for-tat POV-pushing. While I cannot take a position due to me not being an expert in terrorism, I observed a lot of confusion in the right-wing list, resulting in multiple additions and removals of selected incidents believed to have a motive widely (and understandably in the current context) associated (but not always) with right-wing extremism, such as anti-Semitism. --Minoa (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As Dynamo128 typed above, "If there are problems with original research or accidental inclusions of unrelated events, then that should mean the article ought to be fixed, not that the page as a whole should be deleted."-1Firang (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC) Blocked editor. AlanStalk 06:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your talk page shows that you've recently had a topic ban for India and Pakistan related topics. Additionally that you've been in disputes with other editors regarding Rape in Afghanistan, Stoning in Islam, Rape in Islamic law and History of slavery in the Muslim world. AlanStalk 02:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It may be worth noting that a sub-list exists at Islamic terrorism in Europe#List of attacks. TompaDompa (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rename it List of terrorists attacks by Islamic extremists. We have an article for Islamic extremism. Dream Focus 09:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This might work for attacks by groups like al-Qaeda and Islamic State, but the article has become a hotchpotch of attacks that were not motivated directly by Islamic extremism.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The issues with original research or accidental inclusions of unrelated events, can be fixed in normal editing.The article passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pharaoh of the Wizards: This is a list article, so the appropriate guideline is WP:NLIST. You would need to provide evidence that at least some of the list entries have been discussed as a group and under a similar name ("Islamist terrorist attacks") by multiple reliable sources. — kashmīrī TALK 18:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This clearly passes WP:LISTN and clearly there is sourcing in multiple reliable sources that attacks by the Islamic State, Boko Haram, the Taliban, and al-Qaeda is Islamist terrorism.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or WP:TNT. IMO the concept is notable enough for a list but there is a lot of original research going on here and the content is, dubious, to say the least. With better standards it could be a page. Disagree with the above saying "Islamist terrorism" is an inherently problematic term, though PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep or WP:TNT. Changed my mind, topic is too useful to delete. Needs much better page standards and a cleanup, though.PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The other terrorist attack lists are tenuous, but "Islamist terrorism" is a specific category that's widely recognized and used by reliable sources. Lists like this are good to have, because they provide an alternative to newscrufty articles about non-notable attacks that don't have long term sociopolitical effects. If the list needs cleanup or better sourcing, then AfD is not the correct venue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect: It is quite contentious to place a group of people into a category of extreme as this. It would be more appropriate to include extremist in the title, but this is also an apparent fork full of WP:OR. Conyo14 (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize I voted twice here. Conyo14 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Comment There are a couple of IPs above. One has only ever edited in this AfD and the Sandbox. The other IP has been blocked in the past as it was determined to be an open proxy. AlanStalk 00:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the topic is notable on all levels and pertains to a highly noteworthy feature of security threats to millions of people around the world. Many of the assertions made in favour of deletion are specious including one commentator stating that the term used for the title is problematic (when it is supported by very many books and publications over the last few decades) and another concluding inaccurately that the first three entries are representative of the remaining 100+ in the list.--Scootertop (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete such a list is indiscriminate. Most of the coverage focuses on Islamic terrorist attacks on western targets, but the vast majority of targets by Islamic terrorism is against other Muslim/Middle eastern targets, due to geographic and security considerations. Would such a Wikipedia ever convey that weight is dubious because of the WP:OR research concerns. I am persuaded by similar arguments at Left/right wing terrorist AfD discussions. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as a list with poorly defined scope. The boundaries between Islamic religious terrorism and terrorism committed by Muslims and violence committed in the name of Islam that isn't necessarily terrorism are extremely blurry. There are plentiful sources about each of those topics, and our page on Islamic terrorism can explore that nuance, but the material is very poorly suited to a list. The AfDs for left- and right-wing terrorism are an entirely different case; those were ostensibly about phenomena, not lists of incidents, and we do have a comparably article on the phenomenon. A lot of the "keep" votes above are applying arguments from different topics that are not sufficient to justify this list specifically. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't follow any logic in your argument. The sources used in the list aren't "blurry". We don't delete articles on WP because they need improvement and you haven't made any recommendations. 212.26.68.44 (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It means that most terrorism is perpetrated based on complex blends of motives that often don't readily lend themselves to sloppy editorial pigeonholing and broad-brush generalization. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Islamist terrorism is a notable topic with many incidents to list. It is certainly more clearly defined in scope than, say, List of foiled right-wing terrorist attacks. --Local hero talk 02:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Local hero, interesting that you mention that list. Someone else mentioned in another AfD that it should be examined for the same concerns which have so far led to three other lists similar to this one being voted to be deleted. AlanStalk 05:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So go vote on that too, and judge by individual merit here, per WP:WAX. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Local hero:, you're quite right that Islamic terrorism is a notable topic, and there are incidents that are unquestionably Islamic terrorism that we can and do mention there. This, however, isn't that article; this is a list of events that supposedly constituted Islamic terrorism, and it isn't a list we can ever have clear inclusion criteria for. I note that the other list you mention was deleted, for similar reasons. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  • @Ianmacm, you've voted in this twice. Probably easy to do when it's been relisted. AlanStalk 13:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I didn't intend to !vote twice, but my basic views on this are still the same.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I presumed you didn't mean it. I'd suggest you strike one of your votes. AlanStalk 13:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as I voted above. There are a lot of entries and the vast majority, including all the recent ones are fully sourced in line with WP guidelines. The article would benefit from inspection of some entries or perhaps removal of some of the earliest entries on the list.--Scootertop (talk) 13:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scootertop, you've voted in this twice. Probably easy to do when it's been re-listed. AlanStalk 13:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ps, when I went through the article I saw a many entries where it seemed there was a presumption (based on the sources) about people's religion based on their nationality because in a lot of sources Islam or that they were Muslim was not mentioned. At the very least this need WP:TNT. AlanStalk 13:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this particular AFD has been messy due to the different !votes. There is at least some consensus for WP:TNT, but wow is this AFD getting confusing. Conyo14 (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies; I've changed my statement from a vote to a comment if that's okay.--Scootertop (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All good. TarnishedPathtalk 09:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed on all counts. AlanStalk 06:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and remove any and all questionable entries per Dynamo128 and Scootertop. The topic is notable, and there is enough here worth saving. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly notable topic has WP:SIGCOV coverage.Tigerrises (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This topic is notable. BadhonCR (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why don't you read WP:ITSNOTABLE? — kashmīrī TALK 18:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 02:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja of Heisei[edit]

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

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

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

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

Duran Duran's charity concert at Villa Park 1983[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Duran Duran's charity concert at Villa Park 1983 (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)

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

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

Nothing found in Gnews or Gnewspapers. There might perhaps be coverage in British newspapers at the time, my Gnewspapers seems to be limited to American/Canadian sources. I'll keep looking. Oaktree b (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Well, it happened [38] but those are photos of the event from a newspaper. This has a little info [39], one of the seven notable events at the area [40], [41] coverage from the football club about the event. Oaktree b (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And this [42] Oaktree b (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets both WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. There's coverage across 4 decades. Book published by Hachette from a couple years ago [43] with several pages of sigcov. Birmingham Mail had coverage ~30 years after [44], Birmingham Post had a small amount of coverage 22 years after [45]. —siroχo 02:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:GNG WP:EVENT. Re "article detailing a concert that happened in villa park" well, yeah, that's what it's meant to do. I've never really understood the argument "fan made" - if you have no interest in a subject matter, why bother creating an article? — Maile (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Procedural Keep, no deletion rationale provided by nominator. Liz Read! Talk! 07:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zakaria Silini[edit]

Zakaria Silini (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)

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

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

The result was delete‎. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline McGowan[edit]

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

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

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

  • Delete as per the nomination. Fails WP:GNG, but I'd argue against WP:BLP1E as she also gained some fame from her Miss America 2012 competition. Of course, the majority of the references are passing mentions, although I noticed 2, 3, 11, 13, and 15 are not. After a quick search I did find some interesting things including her... staring down the scope of a .50 caliber sniper rifle, which is actually on Commons, funny enough. IncompA 03:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie Kofoed[edit]

Kylie Kofoed (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)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guinwa Zeineddine[edit]

Guinwa Zeineddine (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)

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

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

Delete Unsure of the quality of these sources: [46] and [47]. Second is trivial coverage; not seeing GNG or BLP as being met. Oaktree b (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 00:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Douma[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Linda Douma (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)

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Canada. Let'srun (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would encourage AFD nominators to use plain English rather than cryptic "Lacks sustained WP:SIGCOV .. Falls into WP:BIO1E", etc.
    I challenge both reasons. From a few-second search through Google books, I get two top hits [48] [49], which are two recent books published by UBC Press. Both have a chapter on Linda Douma, claiming that her win of Miss Canada and her activities afterwards were significant contributions to the Canadian pageant title and the feminism movement. Materialscientist (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Shoutout to Materialscientist for finding these sources. This type of sustained coverage from reliable sources proves the long-term impact she had. If this is the kind of coverage she has received just in the past three years, I can only imagine how much there is overall, especially in contemporary sources. Of course, this was all already laid out in the first nomination not even one year ago. JTtheOG (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hate to do the standard "per x" thing response, but in this case I have to !vote like that. Thank you to Materialscientist for showing that she does indeed have good coverage. She clearly has had an impact on feminism in Canada as evidenced by the sustained coverage in multiple books. ULPS (talk • contribs) 17:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources provided above demonstrate notability based on long-term impact. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thanks to the sources found by Materialscientist. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_August_15&oldid=1171769814"