Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 16	August 18 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Fishel[edit]

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

No reliable coverage of this subject and fails to meet notability guidelines. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Artists. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BEFORE does not turn up any reliable coverage. The article itself only has one source, the subject's webpage. The subject's occupation is listed as game designer in the infobox, but the lede states he is an illustrator. The last sentence makes no sense. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Does not appear to have any degree of significant notability aside from fairly vague and passing collaborations with other more notable artists. A MINOTAUR (talk) 02:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject of the article does not meet notability thresholds for WP:NARTIST, WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. All I could find in an online search was social media, links to where one could buy his books (but no book reviews), and links to the shops that sell his posters. Article should not be retained. Netherzone (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Found nothing. Timur9008 (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that after this AfD was opened, someone not participating here deleted a couple of poorly formatted references to works illustrated by this gentleman. The edit summary of "patent nonsense" was concerning and inaccurate, so anyone looking for other coverage of him might want to look back through history and see if those refs might help identify coverage of him or his work. Jclemens (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did a search for sources and found only two passing mentions of people who have the same name (who may or may not be the same person as the subject of the article):
1. Garmel, Marion Simon (1975-05-20). "'500' Art Exhibition Better Every Year". Indianapolis News. Archived from the original on 2023-08-21. Retrieved 2023-08-21 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The surprise of the show is the interesting younger-artist work, some seen for the first time: Michael Fishel's fantastic forest pieces, right out of Henri Rousseau; ..."
2. "Washington Gallery Relocates". The Indianapolis Star. 1977-12-04. Archived from the original on 2023-08-21. Retrieved 2023-08-21 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "From Bloomington there will be works by ... There will also be a painting by Martinsville artist Michael Fishel."
Cunard (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reliable coverage found. This feels like a PR page. Fails WP:GNG and does not pass WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft - the article has been nearly rewritten from scratch, and while it may not clearly meet the GNG yet, I believe this topic may have potential in the future. (Jclemens, I will note that some of the removed material has been added back with better sourcing.) BOZ (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . I could not find any useful RS. Jacona (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 16:31, 24 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!} 23:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph McCabe (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Not convinced that there's enough independent coverage to meet WP:NBIO - sources are promo pieces/advertorials. KH-1 (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Pennsylvania. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I see 2 sources that may be OK 1 and 2 but their reliability is questionable. We would need a few more to pass him.Upper Deck Guy (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first source in particular seems more like a blog (they allow readers to create posts on the website). Belichickoverbrady (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every source in the article is either non-independent, reads like PR copy or both. I found [1] on Google which I think is an as good or better source than anything in the article, but it's not enough on its own. Other hits were clearly not independent. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:56, 24 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. Star Mississippi 02:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Night of the Living Dead (album)[edit]

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

No evidence of importance or notability. It didn't make any top charts nor did it gain other notability. One fan site (https://www.stlyrics.com/songs/j/jackyl4589.html) doesn't even list it as an important or relatively good album from the band. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:36, 10 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!} 23:49, 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. Consensus is sourcing is of insufficient depth Star Mississippi 02:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SponsorBlock[edit]

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

Zero reliable or secondary references and thus no notability. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or merge if a suitable candidate can be found, emphasize on can. Most of the sources provided are primary and don't prove notability as compared to other adblockers which have articles and have survived AFD. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is marginal on GNG (though that is only a notability guideline, and other factors can point to notability as well). However the claim of "zero reliable or secondary sources" is just false. This was featured on Mozilla's extension spotlight ([2]) as well as on ghacks ([3]). There is not really a good merge target either (or I probably would've just mentioned this there instead of making a separate article). Elli (talk | contribs) 01:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mozilla is not a news source, such as ZDNet. Ghacks alone can't support this article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ElijahPepe: Your claim was that there are "Zero reliable or secondary references". That is pretty clearly false; there's a pretty big difference between two such sources and zero. As for Mozilla... while their site is branded as a blog, I have no reason to assume they would not be a reliable source for this subject. It's a blog with editorial oversight (by a pretty major organization) that reviews extensions. Citing them for a review of an extension is a very reasonable thing to do. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with this Ashleighhhhh (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I disagree with the nom's claim that there are zero reliable or secondary sources, it is hard to find sources to establish this source's notability. Only having two or more reliable sources for verifiable content would make this a permastub. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm pretty sure that if you don't include MOU do to not focusing of SponsorBlock and include Mozilla and Ghacks.com (Most reliable name ever⸮) it would only have maybe two sources contribution to GNG. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 15:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources contributing to GNG is often enough. And of course GNG is just a guideline and not the only thing that can indicate notability either. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SponsorBlock is notable enough for its own article. (yes, I am really going to do this) Wikipedia is designed to be an encyclopedia for everything, The sum of all human knowledge, as you will. SponsorBlock has notable events in its history (including being the most popular browser extension on Firefox).

I think that some links would also be broken, because this browser extension is quite popular.

All I'm asking for is for SponsorBlock to no longer be nominated for deletion. ObsessiveScribe (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is the sum of all knowledge, but it's not everything. SWinxy (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This certain verifies in reliable sources. It has been around for at least three years, and now appears on a number of lists of desirable software add-ons. I note that it is now on majorgeeks.com, and is generally rated as 5/5 by users in user reviews. None of the computer oriented websites reviewing the software give much detail, but it seems if this is appropriately encyclopedic. --Bejnar (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting although this could conceivably be Deleted. But there are several comments here that don't officially state Keep but are definitely arguments to keep this article. What matters of this project is not how many users are fan of this extension but secondary, independent reliable sources that give this subject SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very little depth to the coverage it's received, except for the Mozilla blog post (which should be reliable). The rest I've found are listicles. It needs to be the main topic of at least a few independent secondary sources (WP:SIGCOV). SWinxy (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ghacks review is pretty in-depth as well (given how much there is to write about this). Elli (talk | contribs) 21:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The mozilla blogpost doesn't seem to be extremely independent of the subject, assuming that Mozilla generally tends to write about their recommended extensions, given the SponsorBlock – Skip Sponsorships on YouTube is part of Firefox’s Recommended Extensions program at the end of the article 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 05:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't pay to be in the recommended extensions program or anything. It's just "extensions that the Mozilla team thinks are good". Of course those are the ones they write about. See here. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mozilla is the organization behind Firefox. I don't think we can suggest that Mozilla would be able to provide independent reporting of web extensions for their own platform. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 02:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as mentioned above, no in depth coverage. Cinadon36 23:45, 24 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 Binod. Delete and merge isn't viable for attribution reasons., however should someone opt to merge, the history is under the redirect. Star Mississippi 02:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Binod (meme)[edit]

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

As it stands, this article fails the WP:SUSTAINED and the 10 year rule. While there is a significant amount of coverage circa March-September 2020, there has been little coverage of this specific meme since (there is some coverage of a Binod/Vinod meme from 2023, but that is completely unrelated to the one mentioned in the article).

If we do want to document this event/meme in a encyclopedic manner, we could easily import some of the verbiage as a seperate section in the Binod article instead of having a seperate article on the Binod meme. Binod. Sohom (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sohom (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge to Binod - no sustained coverage but enough sources to justify inclusion in another page. Plus, there is not much information here and this can all be pretty easily condensed to fit on that page without losing important details. Alternatively, this could be merged to an article on Slayy Point if there are the sources to justify it. On a brief look, Slayy Point appears to have gotten more sustained coverage but haven't checked the reliability or depth of coverage. Shapeyness (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Sohom (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Also, I don't think "Delete and Merge" is a viable suggestion, you must have meant, "Merge, then Delete".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It does have some lasting coverage, as it's mentioned in meme reports from 2022 and just two weeks ago. SWinxy (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 2022 link is to a different meme, the two weeks ago is a profile of Slayy Point with one mention of the original Binod meme. Sohom (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but those show that SUSTAINED is *somewhat* here, since it was mentioned. The brief mentions don't go far, though. SWinxy (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:27, 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. I see no policy-grounded support for Keeping this article and consensus here is to Delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Weyi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

This is a procedural nomination based on my evaluation of the sources used in the article. Based on my evaluation, this subject does not meet the general, politician, or any biography requirements for inclusion. This article has been nominated twice before, with one discussion resulting in a "delete" decision, and the other resulting in a "no consensus" decision.

Here's my evaluation of sources used in this article:

Acceptable sources: These would be solid sources that meet the requirements to be used to verify notability: I found none that met this.

Iffy sources: Weyi, 2016 Congo Candidate, Projects Hope In Land Of Vast Crises - Opinion piece in Black Star News. Unsure if this could be used to establish notability, since about half the article is about recent elections problems in the DRC, and the latter half sounds like marketing speak rather than a neutral evaluation of the article subject.

Poor sources

These do not meet the reliability requirements for use in establishing notability.

LA Times, March 16, 2016 - Only about 1/5 of the article is written by a third party. The remainder is Q&A by the article subject. This article cannot be used to establish notability.
Africa Agenda, September 22, 2015 (archive as the original doesn't exist) - This organization was formed in Colorado, where the subject has lived for years, so there may be a connection between the subject and the organization. Additionally, this is mostly an interview, so cannot be used to establish notability.
Yessoufou, Moutiou (April 18, 2015). "Emmanuel Weyi on 'African Roots'" (permalink to that episode) - This is an interview (it's scattered throughout the latter part of this episode, the biggest part seems to be around 1:42:00 into it). It's mostly the subject talking with occasional prompts from the host. Cannot be used to establish notability.
'ICOSA Netwok, February 6, 2015 - Another interview/talk show. Cannot be used to establish notability.
"The complete and total embargo of artisanal Congolese minerals." (PDF) SEC. Commentary by Chuck Blakeman and Emmanuel Weyi" - The page is inaccessible, but based on the description in the footnote here (on Wikipedia), this is commentary by the article subject, which therefore cannot be used to establish notability.
Letter of invitation to "a congress of the opposition coalition", February 9, 2011 - Cannot be used to establish notability.
Amnesty International, September 14, 2016 - This is a regurgitation (pretty much word-for-word) of this press release dated the same day. Press releases cannot be used to establish notability. Additionally, the subject is not mentioned at all.
AP, January 6, 2019 - The subject is not mentioned at all, so can't be used to establish notability.

Unknown

I wasn't able to view this source, so I cannot make a judgment on whether it could or could not be used to establish notability. Based on the title of the article, I suspect not.

Nakaso, Dan (February 6, 2015). "Mining Interests. Connect &Collaborate, ICOSA Network". Radio.

Let the discussion begin! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, Politics, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with nom. Per WP:NPOL, just being a politician does not, in and of itself, provide notability. The article subject must meet WP:GNG. This article fails as there are insufficient reliable sources to establish notability. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 23:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very good analysis by the nom. If he had a bit more coverage, maybe he would meet WP:BASIC.Upper Deck Guy (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE! There is no basis to delete the page. He was featured in the LA Times and was on TV news broadcasts. There are far less known individuals with Wikipedia pages. Why is there such a concerted effort to close this page? Maybe this is a smear campaign riddled with racism and harassment against an African American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.239.14.120 (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @197.239.14.120: Please remain civil in your comments, and please don't throw around baseless accusations regarding the nomination. I clearly spelled out why I think this article doesn't meet the inclusion criteria, and specifically addressed each source used in the article. Feel free to explain why you think I'm incorrect on any specific one of those, but do not make personal attacks by accusing me of racism and harassment. Until I'd reviewed this article, I'd never heard of this person, and (as mentioned in my statement above) this is a procedural nomination, not one motivated by anything else. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This seems like a powder keg after that last comment. I did go through the article history and I found the URL for the source @Nihonjoe was unable to verify. It's a recite of #4 in the "Poor sources" list. I found other interviews as well: HiberRadio and this one on SoundCloud. I have not listened to either one to determine if there is information available in them that would affect determination of WP:NPOL. I also found an opinion piece on Medium (yes, non RS, I know) that is rather unforgiving of the fact he has an article on Wikipedia at all - which is one reason why I'm leery of stepping into this minefield. I don't actually want to link it because it provides personal location information as well as a copy of a CO state DL for subject. (Which apparently Google will only let the person whose DL it is report it as doxxing?) This CO business listing is troubling. I'm finding a pattern on dissolved businesses once belonging to the article's subject, but it's all moot as it's all WP:OR anyway - no media outlet coverage of the issue. Regarding the claim in the history of the article that he founded Colorado Sickle Cell, I'm not finding any mention of article subject on the Wayback of the defunct page. The URL in the history of the article has been usurped, and the alternative found via Google is dead. There is an active GoDaddy URL that doesn't list the article subject in either the Board Members or About pages. And it was established in 1974, 10 years before subject came to U.S. according to the version of the article that claimed he founded it. Of course, the other reason I don't want to step into this minefield is the probable WP:No personal attacks violation in that unsigned comment above.

Delete - Having said all of the above, the reasons provided by @Nihonjoe regarding WP:Reliability show ample policy reasons to remove the article. If there is coverage of article subject other than the named sources by media outlets, I did not find it, and one mention in a single paragraph in a book titled Global Human Rights does not appear sufficient to me to counter the well-reasoned argument for removal. OIM20 (talk) 19:56, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pondicherry urban area[edit]

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

No sources, no indication of notability, seems to be just a failed extension of the Pondicherry article The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article's content is already covered in the Pondicherry article. HarukaAmaranth (話)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is the urban area defined by the central government or its statistics agency? In the United States. individual metropolitan statistical areas are notable and the topic of articles. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already covered in Pondicherry as noted and it appears completely unsourced. Should not preclude the possibility of recreation if someone puts the work into a better GNG-passing article. SportingFlyer T·C 09:50, 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 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!} 20:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don Fort[edit]

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

WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Small coverage solely from his government role (WP:NOTINHERITED), and not WP:SIGCOV that would inherently give him WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Karnataka ^talk 19:22, 3 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!} 18:47, 10 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!} 20:36, 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 merge‎ to Hard coding. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Softcoding[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Nearly unsourced neologism. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to hard coding. This is a real topic likely notable, as evidenced by RS articles [4] and [5] and a chapter in an O'Reilly book [6]. hard coding is an obvious merge/redirect target. I don't see why this was posted to AfD; there is no solid rationale for deletion. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:36, 11 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!} 20:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hard coding. That is the actual notable concept, softcoding is a little-known neologism always defined in opposition to hardcoding. Tercer (talk) 12:43, 24 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!} 20:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Bottom[edit]

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

Article is almost entirely promotional and has only 3 sources. History6042 (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and Australia. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:BASIC. Clicking the "books" link in the nomination template we can readily find SIGCOV.
1. Multiple pages of SIGCOV in [7]
2. Multiple pages here [8]
3. A paragraph of coverage in [9]

We can check google news, proquest, and elsewhere for more sources to verify and expand the article, but this is sufficient for WP:BASIC.

Based on what I see in these secondary sources, this subject seems to meet WP:NJOURNALIST.1 for work in exposing organized crime ultimately affecting the legal landscape.

The article itself needs some copyediting to improve the flow and the tone, and help the reader understand what about the subject is notable in particular, but it isn't written at all like the promotional articles we see regularly. —siro χ o 20:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Important anti-corruption crusader. The NSW govt changed the aged of consent laws to imply that he had committed some sort of crime.--Grahame (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Sails past WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR. Also, keep per WP:HEY-- I have added numerous RSs. Cabrils (talk) 23:18, 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 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!} 20:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yanet Núñez Mojarena[edit]

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

Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources is what WP:SPORTBASIC #5 says is the minimum requirement for an article. I can't find any evidence that this player complies with this guideline. She also doesn't meet WP:NTENNIS as playing in the Fed Cup is no longer part of that guideline. She does meet the essay detailed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines but the notability guidelines do supersede WikiProject essays and, in any case, her achievements don't give any room for WP:IAR imho. She has never played in a major tournament, never won a tournament above 10K nor has she ever held a decent ranking (she hasn't even ever been in the top 400). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Tennis, and Cuba. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination. She is more notable than most, but still not notable enough. The fact that she never played, or won in any notable tournament is the nail in the coffin. IncompA 20:21, 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 List of Guatemala women's international footballers. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeniffer Barrios[edit]

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

The subject has made at least one appearance for the Guatemala women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Guatemala. JTtheOG (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails WP:GNG. References 1 and 2 are rosters, 3 is broken and 4 is a stat site. After a quick search, more stat sites are found. IncompA 20:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly fails WP:GNG Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 08:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Guatemala women's international footballers per GNG failure Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of SIGCOV reliable sources, failing GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 16:32, 24 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!} 20:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Ovalle[edit]

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

The subject has appeared for the El Salvador 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, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, El Salvador, and California. JTtheOG (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the soccer massacre continues... Anyway, the article fails WP:GNG, and after looking at references, we have a birth index and a stat site. After a quick search, we find more stat sites. Neato. IncompA 20:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A search found some sources about a Pauline Ovalle from San Francisco in the US Army (e.g. [10]) who also plays soccer.. Is this the same person? – [[User:Dudhhr|dudhhr]] [[User talk:Dudhhr|talk]] [[Special:Contribs/Dudhhr|contribs]]  (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I did some searches. It seems that there is nothing about her. 129.222.136.103 (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:26, 24 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!} 07:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skin Deep (webcomic)[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Webcomics, United States of America, and Missouri. UtherSRG (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Alas, no mention in my books, but we do have an extensive Bleeding Cool article/interview, a full article in Comics Beat (as well as a shorter feature [11]), and mentions in Comics Aliance and Wired. I can work with this. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checks out and sounds like a plan. Keep. --Kiz o r 00:19, 12 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!} 17:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Independent coverage in the Bleeding Cool piece, and the Comics Beat coverage are sufficient for WP:GNG. —siro χ o 22:16, 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!} 07:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dario Seixas[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:MUSICBI and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Brazil. UtherSRG (talk) 16:52, 10 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!} 17:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as they don't seem to meet the notability criteria, and it's doubtful that that will change anytime soon (given that they've had a page tagged with the issue since 2010) Mason (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC, and since the article's been tagged for notability since May 2010, that's unlikely to change. IncompA 20:11, 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!} 20:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Hernández[edit]

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

The subject has made at least one appearance 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) 17:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cuba. JTtheOG (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails WP:GNG, and the references don't do much to indicate notability. Two stat sites, par for the course for these types of articles, and after a quick search, we find more stat sites. IncompA 20:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources indicating GNG being passed. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:25, 24 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!} 20:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yenifer Ramos[edit]

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

The subject has made at least five 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) 17:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cuba. JTtheOG (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG per a lack of reliable, SIGCOV sources. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:25, 24 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Hey man im josh (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joan A. Lambert[edit]

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

~~I can not find any sources to indicate that this person passes GNG. I'm not super familiar with notability standards for politicians but I don't think simply being elected is enough.~~ ★Trekker (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, California, and Nevada. ★Trekker (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete State assembly position with no other references to notability in career. A MINOTAUR (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From WP:NPOL: The following are presumed to be notable: ...or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- A presumtion needs to be followed up with sources that back up the assumption tho, I've looked a fair bit but I couldn't find any sources that are about Lambert.★Trekker (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Notability is presumed for state legislators because the prominence and public nature of the position inevitably results in substantial coverage. That is borne out by a quick search: Newspapers.com has over 500 results with reasonable filters (Nevada, 1980 to present), most of which seem to be for the subject of this article, and at least several of which constitute substantial coverage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I stand corrected then, I was not able to see those source when searching. I will withdraw my nomination.★Trekker (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator.★Trekker (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is POSSIBLY a BLP without good citations! Someone needs to adopt and clean this if possible. SportingFlyer T·C 20:44, 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Glass[edit]

(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) 13:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, United Kingdom, and Australia. UtherSRG (talk) 13:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I have found, and have added, several book reviews, all RSs, so there could be an argument now to keep per WP:HEY. From searches in Google, Newsbank and WikiLibrary databases I couldn't find enough RSs to meet WP:AUTHOR (I don't consider the reviews I've added sufficient to meet the AUTHOR criteria) but I think there may be sufficient to meet WP:GNG.Cabrils (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 10 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!} 17:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cabrils; these are mostly book reviews but in particular the ref from The Economist is good in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NAUTHOR. First three references for reviews. Kudos to @Cabrils: for updating the article per WP:HEYMANN standard. scope_creep^Talk 08:04, 18 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!} 21:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Jattin[edit]

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

Former mayor of Santa Cruz de Lorica. As a local elected official, they are not considered inherently notable and the coverage that I'm finding all appears to be fairly routine. Does not appear to meet point 2 of WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Colombia. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show a lot more substance and a lot more sourcing than this before they clear the bar. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 18 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 Planet of the Bass. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biljana Electronica[edit]

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

This character is not independently notable from Planet of the Bass. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Planet of the Bass: Not independently notable. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Covered by the NYTimes, Washington Post, and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.18.78 (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While those are reliable and independent sources, is the coverage they provide of the subject significant, separately from Plant of the Bass? - UtherSRG (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
separately from Plant of the Bass? is not a policy based qualifier and should be disregarded by anyone choosing to respond. While I understand the sentiment, it's fundamentally a non-sequitur qualifier: if an element has sigcov in context of something else, specifically a parent topic, that's still sigcov. Jclemens (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's policy in WP:INHERIT. The topic can't be deemed notable if its only claim to notability derives from the notability of another topic. The references provided may provide SIGCOV of the parent topic. Do they provide SIGCOV of this topic? - UtherSRG (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your argument, but I also feel the need to point out that WP:INHERIT is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 12:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Does not appear to have enough SIGCOV. Ping me if more is found. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:1E. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 12:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ImStevan (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why? QuicoleJR (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Planet of the Bass _SUBWAYguy 12:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as it is sourced and meets notability standards. Also, the character/song is very new and thus has the opportunity to expand. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2crzppul (talk • contribs)
Strong merge — it is absolutely not independently notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loytra (talk • contribs)
Merge or redirect to Planet of the Bass. Keep voters do not provide any rationale. The stubby article does not meet GNG at present. Feel free to pin me if anyone wants to show which sources have SIGCOV, but pending that, as I said, redirect/merge. There is no indication sources cited focus on the character rather then the larger work. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:18, 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 delete‎. This is a BLP so arguments of presumed notability don’t carry as much weight as the complete failure to provide high quality sourcing as required by the GNG. On that basis we can’t keep this because he is a fellow of a royal society and none of the other keep argument grip against policy. Since we seem to have a lot of promo and logged out editind and are skirting G5 territory I’m salting as an individual admin action but will unlock is a) a draft passed afc or b) an established neutral editor has text based on sources to put up Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georgios Mikellides[edit]

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

Potential Copyvio, definite promotion, disruptively moved from draft. Likely socking. This could all be fixed if he were notable, but there's nothing to indicate this doctor and PhD student is. None of the creators will accept draft space, so we're here for consensus. Star Mississippi 13:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC) ETA: aware of Fellowship, but still not sure it's enough. Star Mississippi 16:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, Cyprus, and England. Star Mississippi 13:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Badly needs a rewrite, this is PROMO. One source [12] mentions him, but nothing substantial. Appears to have published a few papers, but these are used as primary sourcing. Nothing in RS about this person, only things by him. Oaktree b (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only mentions in Gnewspapers are for a port master [13] from 1995, I don't think it's the same person. Oaktree b (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a promo he is famous in Cyprus appearing on various national tv channels and newspapers. Here in this article https://avant-garde.com.cy/articles/prosopa/o-ethnikos-mas-psyhiatros-panta-tha-legetai-mikellidis the reporter stated that the national psychiatrist would be always called Mikellides — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.159.188 (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
George Mikellidis sits on the "couch" of the Lunch Break Challenge and dives into the depths of the Cypriot soul it's an interview, so it does not help for notability one bit. Please log in and use only one account. Star Mississippi 14:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia.

He has lead an innovative research study which is the first in the world and compares Ketamine vs rTMS treatment in treatment resistant depression[35] rTMS has a major breakthrough in neuropsychiatry as an innovative therapy

He is well-known to the public in Cyprus as a TV pundit and has also been elected to the board of directors in Anorthosis Famagusta FC.[4][5][6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.159.188 (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the numerous times he spoke on national tv channels and parts of these interviews are available on his youtube channel Δρ Γιώργος Μικελλίδης-Cyprus rTMS - YouTube 213.207.159.188 (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:BIO to understand what is required for notability, specifically WP:SIRS. And please log in to your primary account. Star Mississippi 14:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a Fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrist, a TV pundit in Cyprus, and also has published research on rTMS vs Ketamine, the first known study in the world that has compared the two in a naturalistic setting 213.207.186.31 (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that being a Fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists is far more notable than being a "PhD student". Fellowship (as opposed to membership) of a Royal College is only granted to those who have contributed substantially to the profession. To quote the RCPsych itself: We award Fellowship as a mark of distinction and recognition of contributions to psychiatry. I'm not saying that this makes him automatically notable, but just pointing out that his notability is not based on just being a doctor and PhD candidate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Were you able to verify that @Necrothesp? I'm imagining there's some transliteration concerns but the search returns no results. His university profile just says member. Star Mississippi 15:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
this is out dated, you can see here that he is a fellow Results (rcpsych.ac.uk) 213.207.159.188 (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Public members list (rcpsych.ac.uk) 213.207.159.188 (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/members/public-members-list he is a fellow 213.207.186.31 (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Unfortunately the search page doesn't work for anybody, so I'm assuming it's broken. And you're right that his CV just says he's a member rather than a fellow. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
if you write mikellides in the search box it comes out as fellow, you can simply check it on the Royal College of Psychiatrists website Public members list see above 213.207.186.31 (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you can also see it here on his Frontiers Loop profile that he is a fellow https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/1336469 213.207.186.31 (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it wasn't working for anyone when I tried it. Obviously having a hiccough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you can even see here his actual Fellowship award https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/D5622AQHNhW_zHp4_iA/feedshare-shrink_1280/0/1670949355632?e=1695254400&v=beta&t=LCrjAP2f2YXmbaAEktKjNIDJP1jmpBdG6tG3ERXiNAI 213.207.186.31 (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you can even see here his actual Fellowship award https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/D5622AQHNhW_zHp4_iA/feedshare-shrink_1280/0/1670949355632?e=1695254400&v=beta&t=LCrjAP2f2YXmbaAEktKjNIDJP1jmpBdG6tG3ERXiNAI 213.207.186.31 (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because he is a Fellow of The Royal College of Psychiatrists in the United Kingdom and a television pundit in Cyprus.[14] A. Landmesser (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thank you, you can also see here his pioneering innovative research work meeting headlines in Cyprus on Ketamine and rTMS https://www.philenews.com/kipros/kali-zoi/article/570658/protoporiaki-erevna-gia-tin-katathlipsi-stin-kipro/ 213.207.186.31 (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
also his work on Ketamine and rTMS has been incorporated by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health https://www.cadth.ca/ketamine-adults-treatment-resistant-depression-or-post-traumatic-stress-disorder 213.207.186.31 (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do see that he's a fellow, and will update my nomination, but I'm not sure that's automatically notable either per Necrothesp's point. IP 231, this doesn't work as it's not a reliable source, nor do the dates match up with RPC's fellowship so a better source will likely be needed especially if this is kept. I'm going to remind you again to please log in and edit with your account. Star Mississippi 16:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment (done by Star Mississippi, as below) the best source to confirm that he is a fellow of the RCP is their website

If you go here https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/members/public-members-list and type his surname mikellides, there is the only one mikellides psychiatrist who is a fellow

He is also famous in Cyprus as a TV pundit. 213.207.159.188 (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck your second vote and turned it into a comment as you're only to !vote once. Please log in to your account. Star Mississippi 17:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thank you 213.207.186.31 (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The criteria are met as he is a Fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrist, a TV pundit but also he has published innovative work, described as the first study in the world to compare Ketamine vs rTMS Ieromaxos (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the article is written more like a not-so-neutral tone, and not enough reliable sources in English, there are but are mostly Greek. signed, 64andtim (chat) 04:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

64andtim, it's not a factor that sources are not in English. That should never be a factor in favor of deletion. There is no requirement that sourcse need to be in English or be online. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is being updated, but each edit appears to add more and more airy peacock-feathering and writing clearly not in a neutral tone. GraziePrego (talk) 04:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Move to Draft: This article is badly written and is not in Wikipedia tone. It needs lot of rewrite. As some voted keep and claiming it notable, I suggest to move this in draft where it can be rewritten.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 04:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I tried to rewrite, but it needs copyediting and referencing because there is lot of information which is not referenced. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 05:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was in draft, and they would not accept that, which is how we ended up here. The SPI will hopefully stop some of the disruptive editing so a neutral article can emerge. I'm still unable to assess whether he's notable given sourcing. Star Mississippi 14:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have many doubts about notability. I rewrote the article to facilitate a more straightforward evaluation of the information. However, the issue of notability still persists. I'm now awaiting responses from other editors. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 17:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Editors commenting here need to realise that (a) AfD is not cleanup and it is the notability of the topic that is relevant not the quality of the article, and (b) sources do not have to be in English to be valid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but redraft. The article is written like a resume, not a biography of a living person. That is not a reason to delete the article. Looking at the article history, it once had 37 cited sources, which has now been cut down to less than 8, after being severely rewritten while this discussion has been going on. However, deleting the article because it is badly written isn't going to address the question of notability. The article needs to be totally redrafted according to the Manual of Style, not deleted because people don't like it. Once redrafted, perhaps notability will be more apparent. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abbasshaikh124. It's not a G5, technically, as Bastien moved but didn't create it, and there are solid arguments for potentially keeping the article. But hopefully the disruption here and at the article will stop to allow for productive editing and notability assessment. Star Mississippi 12:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - the fellowship and national visibility certainly count for sonething but I don't think it is enough; there are many fellows of that society (whilst it is for senior psychologists, there are many of those around), there are many doctoral students in psychology and there are likely quite a few clinical lecturers (albeit possibly not many in Cyprus). So in my view we are left with trying to assess these together with the TV punditry. To me, it sounds like he occasionally comments when asked questions on the TV news. Maybe I'm wrong, but if that's the case I don't see that this is enough as there are obviously many people who give opinions on the TV news. JMWt (talk) 07:51, 25 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. ^Complex/_Rational 18:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Germany–Spain football rivalry[edit]

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

I can't find anything to suggest these two countries are actually rivals. They just seem to have played each other a few times. Over 90 years, a game every 3-4 years isn't all that common. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Germany, and Spain. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. No clear rivalry beyond "two major countries regularly playing each other" (and even saying "regularly" is suspect). Sources include a reference to the very first meeting, a primary source to the Spanish Football Federation, a head-to-head record, and an article that doesn't even mention the word "rivalry". Jay eyem (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources show these teams have played each other many times, but not that there is an actual notable rivalry between the two teams. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate on this, there is only 1 source in the article that uses the term rivalry, and that's a primary source from the Royal Spanish Football Federation. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. The source in the article only mentions the history between the two countries and nothing is said about rivalry. I've also searched the web, but found almost nothing about this. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 19:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As always with a lot of these articles, this is just head to head with some prose. WP:NOSTATS applies, and that is the delete argument to most past articles of this nature. Govvy (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not very notable. Sources do not prove that there is a rivalry. Shadow345110 (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesnt seem to be an actual thingMuur (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Kante4 (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yet another article on a "rivalry" which is really just about the head-to-head record between two teams, with no evidence that any actual rivalry exists. We don't need articles detailing that for every possible combination of national teams -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:33, 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 VNV Nation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Jackson (musician)[edit]

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

Article currently includes no reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC Paul W (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Paul W (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to VNV Nation. No evidence of notability, fails NMUSICBIO. Google does not come up with anything of note, except a Side-Line.com article about Jackson leaving the band. I do not see enough for a standalone article. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to VNV Nation as {{R from member}} per WP:ATD. ✗plicit 12:40, 24 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 12:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matej Kopecký[edit]

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

Article was created 12 years ago with little to no major changes since. I also couldn't find any evidence of notability or significant coverage regarding this football player. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no evidence of notability and the sources presented are totally inadequate. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 18:33, 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 keep‎. No deletion rationale provided with this deletion nomination. If you renominate this article in the future (not now), please provide a policy-based deletion rationale. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Chinese characters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I think this article should be deleted, with its content merged into Chinese characters. A redirect might be appropriate as an alternative? GnocchiFan (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While merging might be appropriate, this article has been discussed and AFD closed as keep just two weeks ago. It is not appropriate to renominate it so soon. Suggest withdrawal and speedy closure. —Kusma (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and China. Shellwood (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 1: This article is encyclopaedic, notable and superbly sourced. There is zero reason to delete it. 2: It is inappropriate to re-nom this so quickly. That alone would warrant a Keep !vote. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per the others, but also re-nominating so soon seems unnecessary. Unless several of the articles proved to be false then that could have been good rationale, but otherwise this is inappropriate. Conyo14 (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. No rationale provided by nom; previous AfD closed only two weeks ago. (Disclosure: I participated there. Not sure if I'm allowed to comment here or not.) Folly Mox (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just closed the first AFD on this article on two weeks ago. Generally, editors wait a few months before renominating. Is there a reason for your urgency about this article? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 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. I don't see a consensus here. That doesn't prevent a future discussion of a Merger to Drag Queen Story Hour#United States or another article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guardians of Divinity[edit]

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

Per WP:ORG for an organization to be notable, they must pass WP:SIRS - which requires multiple articles with in depth coverage.

The article currently is a list of events the group has been associated with protesting, because the group is only mentioned in news articles where it's mentioned they were attending. They weren't the only groups there, so it's "and this group was there" throw-away mentions.

There is no in depth coverage of the group in reliable secondary sources to fill out any additional information - who is the group, what is their history, do they have a mission?

This also falls under guidelines for WP:BLP1E - the protests are more notable than the group itself and WP:BLPCRIME - there have been a arrests at protests with no follow up coverage, I can't determine if charges were ever brought against the people arrested. Denaar (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- First of all, the sources already in the article are sufficient to satisfy the GNG. Second, nom's deletion rationales are inapplicable. This is not a BLP, so BLP1E can't possibly apply. Even if it were a BLP it wouldn't apply because multiple events are involved. Also the mentions aren't passing. The NYT article alone has two paragraphs on the background and origin of the group. For the same reason BLPCRIME doesn't apply -- this is not a BLP. Again, even if it were the criterion wouldn't apply since the article doesn't purport to be about the crimes, so why would it matter if there were continuing coverage of them? Central and Adams (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I should have just said it doesn't pass WP:GNG's significant coverage requirement: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Right now, we only have trivial mentions, there are only 66 results in Google News so it's a pretty short list to go through, and there is a video game with the same name and not all those results are related. Denaar (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying your position. Clearly we disagree on whether the mentions are trivial or not, but we'll see what our colleagues think! Central and Adams (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BLP policy applies to any page, so the nominator's mention of WP:BLPCRIME seems applicable here, because this part of the policy emphasizes the serious consideration needed before including material—in any article that suggests any nonpublic figure has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured; at minimum, this policy consideration seems to emphasize the limited sustained coverage available about the group generally and various arrests reported specifically within the article; I also think it is a relevant consideration during a selective merge process, if that occurs. Beccaynr (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and New York. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not all of the sources cited are especially useful or reliable, but as the last person said the coverage is more than passing and there are several sources. There may not be much on the group's history or mission, but that's because this seems to be an internet-organized all-purpose community of bullies that happened to give themselves a name, not a proper organization with a cohesive guiding principle. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With some Duckducking I was able to find multiple sources covering the subject for at least two paragraphs each fairly quickly, so I think we should be able to meet WP:GNG here, even if the sources in the article itself were lacking, which, judging by the other !votes, they are not. I would add that having clear aims or a large track record are not requirements for meeting notability guidelines.----Licks-rocks (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Drag_Queen_Story_Hour#United_States:

I found a June 2023 Institute for Strategic Dialogue report with several paragraphs focused on the group at pp. 11-12, describing them as "The leading group behind anti-drag activity in the state of New York" and comparing the group to other groups
The January 2023 Anti-Defamation League report, "Online Amplifiers of Anti-LGBTQ+ Extremism" cited in the article has a one-sentence mention in the Blaze Media section, "At one such event, Stein was seen promoting “Guardians of Divinity” member David Nieves..."
The NYT coverage in the article, Foes of Drag Queen Story Hours Invade New York Councilman’s Home (Dec. 20, 2022) notes "at least 141 protests, attacks or “significant threats” against drag events in the United States so far this year, according to a report published by GLAAD" and also discusses "the Guardians of Divinity, a far-right organization" as "believed to be behind many of the protests in New York" and briefly mentions its origin "opposing pandemic-era vaccine and mask mandates," and states the group has "shown up at several Drag Story Hour events in Jackson Heights, Queens, and they also disrupted a community forum in Astoria hosted by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez."
A variety of sources in the article focus on the Dec. 2022 event, e.g. Vice (Dec. 20, 2022, does not mention Guardians of Divinity); AMNY (Dec. 20, 2022, does not mention Guardians of Divinity); The Advocate (Dec. 24, 2022), Guardians of Divinity association attributed to a belief by Bottcher); WP:DAILYBEAST (Dec. 28, 2022), citing WP:NYPOST to identify Guardians of Divinity involvement.
Other sources in the article do not mention the group, e.g. Astoria Post (Jan. 18, 2023); Patch (Feb. 2, 2023); Upper East Site (Feb 1, 2023).
The article includes TimesLedger aka QNS coverage on Dec. 30, 2022, "Proud Boys protest drag story hour event at Jackson Heights Library" and Jewish Telegraphic Agency coverage "These Jews are defending Drag Story Hour against far-right protestors. Here’s why." (Jan 6, 2023) - this type of coverage seems to help support a merge to where protests and counter-protests can be presented with appropriate context, per WP:PAGEDECIDE.

This local organization with coverage that appears to begin in December 2022 may become "nationally well-known" (per WP:CLUB) in the future, but at this time, there does not appear to be sufficient support for a standalone article (e.g. with "national or even international notice" and "widespread attention" as described for non-commercial organizations). Beccaynr (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I voted Keep above, but you make a very convincing argument here, and I would be fine with a merge on these grounds. Wouldn't that first report already qualify as SIGCOV though? It provides a fairly clear-cut summary of all the important information about the group. --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first report offers more in-depth coverage than other sources, but also helps identify the group as a local organization and as one of several groups that "began to pivot to more anti-drag activity" since late 2022 - this report also states, "as vaccine mandates and lockdowns fall out of the news cycle (and public attention), anti-drag activity may become a more consistent mobilizing force" and this is part of why I suggest a merge (and redirect to preserve the article history) - the ISD report indicates the group is part of a trend that has broadly received attention and continues to be monitored. From my view, it seems possible that WP:SUSTAINED coverage of the group may exist in the future, but for now, we appear to have more sustained and in-depth coverage of the broader context that also predates coverage of this specific group (See e.g. the Nov. 21 2022 GLAAD report cited by the NYT). Beccaynr (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Drag_Queen_Story_Hour#United_States per rationale of Beccaynr. Sal2100 (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively for the reasons presented above. As a stand alone topic it's not clear this is notable.

Springee (talk) 17:57, 28 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!} 17:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Actualcpscm (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge parts to Drag_Queen_Story_Hour#United_States per the information provided above. Attention whore (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Central and Adams and Licks-rocks — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 17:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And Drag panic would be a better merge target than Drag Queen Story Hour § United States, surely, if we end up merging — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 17:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing a full article about them, only passing mentions. Mostly about stuff the group has done. I don't see a merge as being valuable. I'd say this is PROMO, but it's neutral in tone and rather helpful as a description, but the group doesn't seem notable, at this time. Should US politics continue down the same path, we'll likely see more from this entity... Oaktree b (talk) 14:11, 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 merge‎ to Schleswig-Holstein. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of honorary citizens of Schleswig-Holstein[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, and is WP:UNSOURCED. Precedents:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is concerning that these categories have been deleted with reference to past decisions to listify the categories and then a proponent of deleting the categories is proposing to delete the lists. Jahaza (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which past decisions to listify? I am unaware of any. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This one[15] you linked to on Categories for Discussion[16]. Jahaza (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't see that because The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:05, 24 June 2010. It didn't say "listify". Thanks for pointing it out. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG, multiple sources discussing award are now added to article. Side note, this region is much larger than the ones listed as precedents. —siro χ o 07:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Followup note, forgot to mention that it meets WP:NLIST as the group is discussed as such in those sources as well. —siro χ o 22:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why don't we move this to Schleswig-Holstein as a section? Suitskvarts (talk) 06:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be acceptable for me. It is no longer unsourced, but I don't think it's enough for a standalone article. @Siroxo: What do you think about merging to Schleswig-Holstein? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This would be an acceptable outcome, as the main article is around 5000 words or so, still "readable prose size". That article has a lot of links out to sub-articles already, so it may also not be necessary to merge. —siro χ o 06:17, 12 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 16:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update Category:Honorary citizens closed as Delete (all). List of honorary citizens of Zwolle closed as Redirect to Zwolle. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nederlandse Leeuw, it's not clear to me what you are advising be done with this particular article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz I advise a merger to Schleswig-Holstein (per Suitskvarts and with the consent of Siroxo), making this page a redirect to a section in that article (per the Zwolle precedent). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible choice. No really, how is being an honorary citizen less defining or notable for a person than recieving an award (which we have tons of categories for)?★Trekker (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what kinds of awards. Some awards are WP:NONDEFINING per WP:OCAWARD. Category:Honorary citizens and its various subcategories have been deleted again and again because they are not considered defining enough. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:33, 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 delete‎. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Babu Gogineni[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Passing mention in most of the references in the article, of which many are not WP:INDEPENDENT, and some are written by the subject himself (WP:SELF). The only thing notable is him being the former "Executive Director" of an NGO - International Humanist and Ethical Union. I'm not aware of a particular policy for such organizations within WP:BIO, hence would like to compare it with WP:NPOL, that is "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.", ergo not enough coverage in reliable independent sources. Just to note some of the present board of directors and present CEO of this organisation don't have articles in Wikipedia - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spirituality, India, and Telangana. — Karnataka ^talk 10:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm surprised the article survived the first time. As per my research the only notable position this person held is Executive Director of IHEU. If we observe this Britannica article on IHEU there is no mention of Executive Director in the list of members of Executive Committee and even on International Humanist and Ethical Union Wikipedia page there is no mention of this Executive Director position as one of the important people of this organisation under organisation section of article. So, Executive Director is an employee and not a member of Board of Directors. There are still positions above Executive Director in this organisation such as Vice-president, President, and so on. So I go with delete as per nomination. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 22:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : As a contributor to this article, I firmly believe that it should be kept and improved rather than deleted.

Firstly, Babu Gogineni has had a significant impact in various fields, making him a notable figure. He has been a prominent humanist, rationalist, and social activist, advocating for critical thinking, secularism, and human rights. His contributions to these areas have garnered attention both nationally and internationally. Furthermore, he has been featured in various media outlets and has participated in numerous public debates and discussions, which further underscores his notability.

I understand the concern regarding the quality of references in the article. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that Wikipedia's policies allow for improving and updating articles over time. As a contributor, I am committed to enhancing the article by finding and adding more reliable and reputable sources that meet Wikipedia's citation standards. I am also open to working collaboratively with other editors to ensure the references are of the highest quality possible.

While I respect the concerns about Wikipedia's editorial standards, I firmly believe that the core principle of Wikipedia is to include information on noteworthy subjects, and Babu Gogineni certainly falls within that scope. Deleting the article entirely would be a disservice to Wikipedia's commitment to providing comprehensive and well-sourced information to its readers.

Furthermore, it is essential to consider the significance of Babu Gogineni's role as the ex-officio Executive Director for the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), now called Humanists International. The IHEU is a globally recognized organization that promotes humanism, rationalism, and ethical values on an international scale. Babu Gogineni's leadership in this position has undoubtedly played a crucial role in advancing the organization's mission and impact in advocating for human rights and secular values worldwide.

His tenure as the ex-officio Executive Director signifies his standing as a respected and influential figure within the global humanist community. The role itself involves responsibilities of strategic planning, representing the organization at international forums, and engaging in diplomatic efforts to foster collaboration with like-minded organizations and governments. Such a position warrants recognition, as it demonstrates Gogineni's involvement in shaping policies and initiatives that have a tangible impact on people's lives.

We should acknowledge that notability is not solely determined by mainstream media attention or celebrity status. Instead, it is also about the influence and contributions of an individual within their respective field or community. In this regard, Babu Gogineni's work with IHEU is undoubtedly noteworthy and contributes to his overall significance as a public figure.

As we discuss the article's notability, let us consider the broader context of Gogineni's contributions to humanism, rationalism, and ethical values. His involvement in leading a prominent international organization further cements his status as a notable personality, deserving of a well-documented and informative Wikipedia article.

I urge my fellow editors to consider the potential of this article. With collective efforts and a commitment to improvement, we can maintain the article's integrity while upholding Wikipedia's content guidelines. I sincerely hope that you will join me in keeping this article and helping it reach its full potential. Ram Gangaraju (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article should be instead cleaned up with active links and web archive versions of the dead links previously referenced.

Babu Gogineni has a notable human rights activism record, is a noted humanist internationally within humanist circles, an attestation to this being an entry in citation [1] of the article, which is an international directory of humanists, rationalists and freethinkers. Here's his entry: https://archive.org/details/whoswhoinhellhan00smit/page/442/mode/2up

He's also a signatory of Humanist manifesto 2000 written by Paul Kurtz who is not professionally affiliated with IHEU in which Gogineni worked ex-officio as Executive Director.

IHEU is now called Humanists International and its current President (Andrew Copson) and most of previous chairs and presidents and some of its current board members indeed have wiki entries.

Gogineni has also written op-ed articles for BBC Telugu and is frequently cited as an expert in human rights issues in news media.

He also has more than a 100 interviews to his credit in TV news channels, was a celebrity participant in Bigg Boss Telugu season 2 (Indian version of Big Brother reality show). In addition, he also created and presented a science documentary series. He has an imdb entry https://www.imdb.com/name/nm9898368/

Gogineni has also been attacked for his views and was slapped in the past with a frivolous case for hurting religious sentiments, which garnered solidarity from rationalists and humanists in the country. The case was subsequently struck down by the courts.

Here are some news articles from Indian national-level media on his work:

https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/indias-own-carl-sagan-meet-babu-gogineni-science-populariser-hyderabad-70951?page=1

https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/rationalist-and-bigg-boss-contestant-babu-gogineni-booked-hyd-cops-sedition-83760

https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/humanist-and-rationalists-condemn-case-filed-against-babu-gogineni-express-solidarity-83965

His work is notable and important in the Indian rationalist/humanist scene where he works as a science popularizer, activist and commentator and led campaigns to bust superstitions, and in issues of human rights.

I vote to keep this article and possibly let it be cleaned up and updated. Tejasomina (talk) 03:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Giving interviews doesn't make him notable. As I already explained Executive Director in this organisation is like Head of Marketing in big MNCs. There are Vice-president, President, Chief executive officer, Board of Directors above him. Until now we've deleted many articles as such. This doesn't make him eligible to have article on Wikipedia. IMDB shows which you've mentioned are tv shows which were broadcasted in 10TV Telugu News channel as a program like crime stories. These are not documentaries. Moreover anyone can create account on IMDB and add things like this. These are just half an hour programs which comes on Sunday's in 10TV Telugu News channel. Writing articles doesn't make a person eligible to have an article on Wikipedia. Many people will write op-ed articles and publish them on many prominent News websites this doesn't make them notable. please refer to WP:BLPSPS, WP:BLPSELFPUB & WP:SIRS, launching campaign on issues and doing protests and debating on those topics in News channels doesn't make him eligible to have article on Wikipedia. There are many activists like him who popularized science across the world this doesn't make them eligible to have article on Wikipedia. MRRaja001 ^(talk) 05:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised and disappointed at equating the executive director of a human rights organization who represented it in platforms like United Nations, Council of Europe, to chief of marketing of a company. Also disappointed at equating a science documentary aimed to inspire critical thinking in a news channel in a generally scientifically illiterate Indian society, to a cheesy crime-reality show that causes prejudice and paranoia in society.

I am also surprised at reducing Gogineni’s contribution to rationalism, human rights and rescue activities and their impact, to giving interviews and making media appearances. Some of his campaigns like the rescuing the god-child Sambhavi deserve their own articles in Wikipedia due to their significance in Indian society and impact on making use of human rights commission to uphold child rights in India.

As far as the other objections related to self-authored sources are raised, many of the previously cited references in this article were actually from third party sources, news sources and other publications. These references seem to have been removed recently from the article as they are dead now and this article has been put up to nomination for deletion with this being one of the grounds.

This is one of the primary reasons I would like this article not to be deleted now and instead to be updated and expanded with active sources of good quality. Tejasomina (talk) 03:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In that case we can delete page and move this to draft. There you can expand and add good citations and resubmit for article creation again. If it meets all the Wikipedia standards then it'll get accepted.- MRRaja001 ^(talk) 07:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly we have videos about cats and about World War 2 leaders. With decent, extensive sourcing, anything can be covered here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:35, 17 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 16:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Delete He appears to have been on Big Boss 2, so there is plenty of coverage; although it could be someone with a similar name [17]. It appears he's been charged with a crime [18]. If he's on the Big Boss 2 show, !keep. If not, !delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does participating in Bigboss make him eligible to have article on Wikipedia.Now all the people who participated in this show can create articles right as per your logic. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 16:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking a question, that's why I was wondering if it's worthwhile. Plenty of coverage for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:As per my research the only notable position this person held was Executive Director of IHEU and this too is not part of Executive Council or neither equal to the position of Board of Directors or President or Vice President of this organisation. So, i suggest for deletion of this article. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 16:44, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlotte Deupree[edit]

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

Former beauty pageant contestant that is a case of WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Alabama. Let'srun (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Deupree won Miss Alabama and came in as the runner-up at Miss America 2003. I feel that's significant since it's the biggest beauty pageant competition in the country and the Top 5 is basically the pageant equivalent of a podium spot. Had she just won Miss Alabama and not won any other awards or pageants, I might agree, but right off the back, that is more than being famous for one thing. So I am voting keep.KatoKungLee (talk) 03:53, 26 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!} 23:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the subject fails Wikipedia:Notability. BLP1E or not, the subject must still pass WP:BASIC. I believe she does not. The only source that maybe qualifies under the GNG is a very small local newspaper. Here is a source assessment table:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:IAmHuitzilopochtli
Greenville Advocate	Yes.	? It is unclear whether or not this local newspaper (which doesn't even have its own wiki page) is reliable, but I currently have no reason to doubt the reliability as of now.	The entire article is focused on Scarlotte.	? Unknown
Miss Alabama website	The subject competed in this competition.		Mentioned in a list of winners.	✘ No
Miss America website	The subject competed in this competition.		Routine database entry.	✘ No
Kilgore Firm website	Her husband's firm.		Just a passing mention that she is his wife.	✘ No
Literary Council website	She is on the board		Just a passing mention that confirms she is indeed on the board.	✘ No
Alpha Delta Pi website	Her sorority.		Just a passing mention of her in a list of pageant winners who were members.	✘ No
Samford University website	Her college.		Short as it is, technically SIGCOV. Still not independent.	✘ No
Troy University website	The college the runner up to her attended.		passing mention of her as the winner.	✘ No
Jeff Sessions	Her senator, (whom she also interned for).		A routine acknowledgment.	✘ 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}}.

IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 21:43, 8 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 16:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, thanks for the source analysis! Fails WP:GNG, and I'm not sure what other SNG would apply. There is no consensus that beauty pageant participants or even winners are inherently notable. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 15:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not all sources are in depth sources individually, but note that WP:NBASIC states: “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability” 109.37.150.153 (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment2 Greenville Advocate looks indeed reliable and indendant. Has a wikidata item (here) and is added manually to the list of missing articles for newspapers and Alabama and Alabama newspapers. 109.37.150.153 (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think these sources are independent: bizjournals.com, styleblueprint.com and another source of Greenville Advocate 109.37.150.153 (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per source table above. Nothing for GNG, some confirmation of the pageants she's participated in. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @IAmHuitzilopochtli: Greenville Advocate is a reliable newspaper. I have provided a Library of Congress record [19] to prove their validity as a legitimate newspaper organization. Local news stations and newspapers are considered reliable unless proven otherwise. It does not change the rest of the source analysis beyond this one source, which will count towards GNG. Conyo14 (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I hate to say it but it appears that she probably doesn't pass WP:GNG. The only thing going for her is the small local newspaper. What about the sources the IP posted earlier? Has anyone looked at those? Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 11:19, 24 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 12:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dvojka[edit]

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

Completely unsourced, fails WP:GNG. IntegerSequences (talk | contribs) 08:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. IntegerSequences (talk | contribs) 08:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Slovak article is likewise unsourced. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is very short and has no sources. I do not see any notability. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 19:54, 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 speedy delete‎. Per comments below plus WP:G5 (Amansharma111 Girth Summit _(blether) 12:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC) Girth Summit _(blether) 12:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Qurram Ali[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable local politician, never fought any major polls, fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 07:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 07:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable politician, failed WP:NPOL. ——‘Syed Aala Qadri Kalkatvi (talk) 18:04, 18 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!} 07:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Coury[edit]

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

Little to no third party coverage for the subject. Acting/producing credits do not appear to be notable. Fails WP:NBIO. KH-1 (talk) 06:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and United States of America. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 10 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!} 06:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero notable roles for ACTOR, business activities are nothing for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifamouspeople is typical of the non-reliable sources used in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:18, 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!} 07:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mollie Milligan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Bit-part actor, producer advertising her business. WP:BLP with no secondary sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Been on the cat:nn list since 2010 and never been updated. scope_creep^Talk 06:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and United States of America. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as last time, mostly bit parts. One role in Spit On Your Grave, but nothing before or after it seems. Delete for lack of sourcing, not meeting ACTOR. Oaktree b (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, third time at AFD, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Tagged for notability since 2010. Only minor roles. Fails WP:NACTOR UtherSRG (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 merge‎ to List of Street Fighter characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sagat (Street Fighter)[edit]

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

I will be honest this is not an AfD I wanted to do. However after rather extensive searching there's not a lot of actual meaningful commentary about Sagat as a character or his design, and far less than most of the cast. I've extensively searched through Internet Archive, google scholar, and done web crawls through various websites and while he's mentioned (often times discussing his gameplay in the context of a particular game) it shows he's iconic to the series, but fails notability as a character. Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: For the sake of transparency, while this was originally attempted as a WP:BLAR, another editor contested the merge and posted sources on the article's talk page suggesting notability was satisfied by them. However two of the articles were commentary about his gameplay in a particular game ([20], [21]) and the third, Undisputed Street Fighter, added little commentary on his own as is effectively a primary source (per Internet Archive).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. There's just too little in terms of significant coverage. And while I'd say the gameplay coverage can be included, it's basically game guide content and doesn't show notability, especially since Sagat was not uniquely discussed (all of SF4 and SF5's cast got their own articles). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I don't believe Undisputed Street Fighter's a primary source. It is based on information from Capcom interviews, but was not written by Capcom and restates the information in the words of the author. The other two sources analyze his gameplay and a bit of his backstory, making him squeak past GNG even before you get into possible Japanese sources that may exist. I don't think sourcing is particularly incredible but I debate the idea it is obviously non-notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with the two gameplay sources is that they exist not because Sagat is notable, but because Street Fighter is notable. Every character in SFs 4 and 5 got an article like this, so it's not like they went out of their way to write about Sagat just because he's a notable character. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't agree with the suggestion that the two sources that analyze his gameplay don't contribute towards the character's notability. For the purpose of this AfD, I think it's irrelevant as to why they wrote about Sagat, as long as the writers and the publications that they employ them are vetted as reliable sources and aren't connected in some way to the publisher or owner of the Street Fighter IP. Haleth (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They concern only one incarnation of a character, and even then strictly on their gameplay in that title and similar articles were done for all the other characters in that title; Sagat's gameplay is not exceptional nor being examined outside of the context of that article. If gameplay articles like that counted for notability we'd literally have articles for nearly ever fighting game character up, not to mention every competitive pokemon, or every character even remotely involved in eSports.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I vehemently disagree that intent is irrelevant. What you're describing - not being a primary source and being reliable - only go to establish that they can be trusted to provide accurate, unbiased information, not that the information they provide is a show of notability. These articles' existence establishes only that Sagat is as notable as th least notable member of the SF4 and SF5 casts. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Really, everyone from SFII's roster should have an article, and Sagat is no exception. The whole roster is so iconic, that I would be shocked if there's not more out there, besides the sourcing brought up here. And if we count gameplay articles, I don't think it's true we would have articles for the vast majority of characters. Not everyone gets a lot of gameplay coverage, at least not without falling into WP:GAMEGUIDE. So I support keeping the article on those grounds. MoonJet (talk) 07:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds? You didn't cite anything. Come on, you should know better than thinking that a baseless assertion of being "iconic" is a valid AFD argument. Closing Admin discount this sort of fluff. Sergecross73 msg me 12:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because I feel, in good faith, some editors are arguing more because they like the subject than practicality, I'm going to point out the essay WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES: just because something is iconic, doesn't make it notable. We've seen several examples of that. So repeating "there has to be sources!" does not mean a lot if there are sources to cite. If you want to help, find sources that satisfy SIGCOV, but "I'd be surprised if there wasn't more out there!" is not only not an argument it's a bit rough to people that have tried per WP:BEFORE to find said sources.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really an argument for keeping the article, per say, just a little benefit of the doubt. If I had nothing else to add besides that, I wouldn't be !voting at all. MoonJet (talk) 08:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Not everyone gets gameplay coverage, but Sagat is getting gameplay coverage because every Street Fighter character gets gameplay coverage. This is something that I would expect to show notability of a list of characters, not to say that each individual character is notable if they get this couple of sources. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Highly notable and more sources exist.KatoKungLee (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- What sources? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep The two presented sources by the nominator feels like it should help its notability, but a borderline case. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 23:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as though no one has elaborated upon the actual merits of these articles. What do these articles show? To me, it seems like they convey "Street Fighter 5 and 6 competitive play is notable." - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The merits appear to be that Sagat and his gameplay is important to the professional Street Fighter scene. One might find this trivial perhaps, if you are not a fan of watching Street Fighter, but that would be an issue of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It still qualifies as establishing context and making the article not indiscriminate. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm:: You know every character, especially for titles like SF4, got articles like that. Again you're trying to present the argument that somehow Sagat is unique in this case when he isn't. Also please actually read what articles like WP:IDONTLIKEIT because it's been very well explained how the source doesn't work for notability in their view.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I find it strange to call it IDONTLIKEIT when we're pointing out that the two gameplay articles are indiscriminate. I believe that Sagat is important to the scene, just as many SF characters are, but the point we're making is that these two sources don't show that he's important. Maybe if Sagat was one of like, five characters to get a gameplay article, that would be notable - but he's not. [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] @Zxcvbnm: This is a glorified "list of Street Fighter IV characters" article, covering the characters not because they're notable, but because SFIV is notable. Now, looking at the shacknews citation: [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] Sagat's shacknews article was done because he was a DLC character, and they did this for all of the SFV DLC up to a point. They didn't do it because they found Sagat notable, the least notable SF character would have gotten this article if they were featured as part of the DLC they covered. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either we downgrade IGN as a reliable source because they made all these articles, or we accept that they mean that all of these characters they consider notable. I don't think the fact that there is an article for each character diminishes its significance, unless they were all lumped together in a single listicle somehow. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a ridiculous premise. This is not significant coverage. The fact that you admit that if these articles were combined into a list should be proof that you're not even arguing that the content is significant coverage. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the articles were posted several weeks apart. I'm afraid I don't see what's so ridiculous about saying they are each an independent article. They decided to give a full treatment to each character, and that says something about the characters and their importance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll contend that Crimson Viper and Dudley (Street Fighter) both have more said about them independently as fictional characters in reliable sources, and yet somehow the existence of guides didn't stop you from voting to merge them. In fact, you're the one that [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crimson Viper|AfD'd]] the former. It's okay to like a subject Zx and not want to see it merged but at some point you have to look back at the standards you've set and realize it's making you look hypocritical, even excluding the fact you're trying to argue How-To content provides notability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It says nothing, because the fact that 100% of SF4's cast got one of these articles tells us that IGN would have written about any character in SF4 and give them their own separate articles. It's essentially saying that the SF4 cast as a collective being notable affects the notability of the individual characters, which is silly. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
C. Viper and Dudley both got 1 and 2 pages, respectively, in Undisputed Street Fighter (unless you count a cosplayer dressed as C. Viper) while Sagat got a 5-page spread. The C. Viper AfD claimed that C. Viper had 5 pages on her, but did not really go into how much coverage was on those pages or what exactly it was. That is why I don't believe I would be a hypocrite for daring to !vote weak keep on Sagat. However, as the "weak" implies, I still acknowledge coverage is slim, yet viable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Character has a degree of importance that ensures his own article, albeit not a highly notable one; the user who proposed the deletion has a point but the article isn't exactly that unnecessary to warrant a deletion for the time being. NanaOn-Sha (talk) 07:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC) sock puppet NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge to List of Street Fighter characters. From what I've seen of this discussion, it's mostly a lot of "He has to be notable!" and while I agree, he very likely is, there just don't seem to be enough sources backing him up. General notability doesn't matter much on Wikipedia unless there's sources to back it up. If that wasn't the case, nearly every Pokemon would still have an article right now. I'd love to keep Sagat around and frankly I feel there's some good grounds for a potential revival in the future, but the current situation, from my observations, seems to indicate that there just isn't enough for Sagat to stand on. If some more sources get discovered, ping me, and I'll be willing to change my vote. As it stands, I feel merging is the best option, as it retains all of Sagat's major information. Pokelego999 (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hate to make a second comment here, but I feel in good faith there's a heavy amount of WP:ILIKEIT involved in this mess, primarily with some claiming that the character should be notable due to the others or being "iconic", which time and again has been proven to not be a standard with previous AfD's. Additionally despite the claims above, no additional sources have been added to the article, its talk page as part of ref ideas, or mentioned here. The main argument is that at this time Sagat does not pass notability, and that the major sources provided as a counter to that assertion mainly consist of How-To content specific to one specific game with no citeable commentary about the character. Sources may manifest down the road as they have with other character, and they could (and should) be worked onto the character list entry until we have a point the article can be revived. But for a character that is over thirty years old, the fact there is so staggeringly little we can cite is a big moment of pause.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did some searching, and the best I found are some articles from reliable sources (like IGN) mentioning Sagat, but virtually none specifically about Sagat that weren't fan blogs or similar sites. It's doesn't matter how "iconic" Sagat is, he's evidently not iconic enough to receive coverage by reliable sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortador (talk • contribs)

I think delete is a virtual impossibility here as there is a clear WP:ATD even if Sagat is decided to not be notable. I am curious to know if you believe, specifically, that Shacknews and IGN as well as the Undisputed Street Fighter section are not "specifically about Sagat". They seem primarily about him as a character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first article is a self-described guide, which I don't think is a good source, leaving a single article on one specific incarnation of Sagat. I've never hear of Undisputed Street Fighter, so I can't comment on that. That said, I can't see any of these sources in the actual article, so if you want to preserve the article, feel free to add them. Cortador (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undisputed Street Fighter is linked here.

See WP:NEXIST, AfDs are not predicated on what's actually in the article.

I should also say that guides are not restricted for use as sources. WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE applies to the content of articles. However, I also recently found this article from Japan Times about how Sagat was used as an ambassador for tourism for Saga Prefecture. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As others have noted, Sagat appears mostly, if not exclusively, in list of one kind or another (e.g. the guide articles exists for all SF4 characters, and the book also covers all characters), indicating that it's less Sagat being notable, and simply the Street Fighter games and franchise. Cortador (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect I have changed my vote per arguments above before the discussion was relisted. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 00:05, 10 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 03:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect per my previous vote. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't gotta revote, this is just to get more input. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, alright. Pokelego999 (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Yeah, checking the sources myself on the article, there isn't a whole lot here. Not sure how this was able to come into existence to be honest. NegativeMP1 (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is evenly divided between those editors wanting to Keep this article and those request a Merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The reception section is poorer than that of many similar artices we merged. Existence of how-to gaming guides is not very helpful - such guides can be found for many aspects of many games, that doesn't mean they become notable. It's just a quirk of modern day Intenet. If we treated them as SIGCOV, we would suddenly get hundreds of articles about quests or puzzles from various games, in addition to every playable character becoming notable. Nope, nope, nope. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 24 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'm closing this as No consensus. I could have relisted this discussion again (and I will if there is a protest) but I just see a difference of opinion regarding whether or not sufficient sources exist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A2K (America2Korea)[edit]

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

Declined and deleted at Draft:A2K_(America2Korea) only to be copy and paste moved to mainspace after draftification, so bringing it here for discussion. I find no evidence of notability for this streamed reality show, with churnalism sourcing originating from the partners. No obvious merger target. Star Mississippi 02:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Korea, and United States of America. Star Mississippi 02:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON; I could see this A2K thing becoming a large thing here sometime in the not-so distant future. They are attempting to create an American girl K-pop group, and me and you both know the huge, and still ever increasing market for K-pop. If this ever gets huge, it may be time to bring it back. IncompA 03:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources used are not originated for the show producers, the show is a joint venture by JYP Entertainment and Republic Records. Whereas the sources used in the article are secondary, independent and reliable from the show such as Billboard and Forbes. Furthermore, I have found additional reliable sources [44][45] [46]. Lightoil (talk) 12:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
those are more interviews and reprints of press releases, which unfortunately do not qualify as independent or secondary. The Forbes link goes to a Billboard article Star Mississippi 12:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi, here are more sources in Korean that should make it notable [47] [48] [49][50]. There are plenty more here [51]. Lightoil (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A string of sources are being given, but it appears there is a misunderstanding as to what qualifies as reliable independent secondary sources. None of these qualify and WP:GNG is clearly not met. Per IncompA, this may be TOOSOON. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability (see WP:NSUSTAINED) and at this time the bar for an article for this subject has not been met. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy what about the Korean sources? Lightoil (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I read them all through Google translate and that is the basis of my response. To be clear, refs 4,5,6 and 7 are all hosted on the entertainment section of the Naver portal, blogged by multiple authors. This is not a reliable source. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy Look carefully Naver portal is not a blog is it just a platform for news organizations. Lightoil (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I think there is a misunderstanding as to what qualifies as reliable independent secondary sources. It is not just the reliability. These sources are editorials and columns. Even if you accept the reliability of the source (and I don't), that only addresses one of the 4 arms of WP:GNG. It does not address the other three. These are editorials and columns, making them WP:PRIMARY. See note d under that link. You say one is aggregated from a news organisation, so have a read of WP:NEWSORG which is part of the WP:RS guidelines. And this shouldn't be too surprising to us, because if all we have is a few magazine articles aggregated in a web portal then this coverage will have all the limitations of such journalism. We don't have here any indication of permanent notability - we have primary sources indicating ephemeral interest in ongoing entertainment. This is not significant coverage. Again, Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. When people start writing about this as some groundbreaking / gamechanging show, we will have our secondary sources. We don't have any of them now. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy I disagree with your view that they are WP:PRIMARY as they are written independent from JYP Entertainment and Republic Records and they are WP:SIGCOV as they are covering the show itself and not just a passing mention. Furthermore, did you look at my last link as there as many more sources about the show. Lightoil (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See my answer below. Also I had a typo in my link to note d of WP:PRIMARY. Now fixed. Have a careful read of that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear my sources are news organizations; Sports World, Newsis, Maeil Economy and Sports Trend, not blogs. Lightoil (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lightoil, there seems to be significant reliable Korean news coverage. ⇒ Luminous Person (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which of those provides significant independent reliable secondary sources ? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with all of the sources listed above, but for example, ref 5 ( Newsis) is listed on WP:KO/RS. It reports on the topic from an outsider's view and is not an opinion piece, so I believe this would be considered a secondary source. ⇒ Luminous Person (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So ref 5 states first that this is a piece written by an intern reporter, and then consists of 6 paragraphs of text. Paragraph 1-4 are simply recounting what happened, particularly in episodes 4 and 5. The fifth paragraph tells the reader what the programme is and the last paragraph is one line telling us when to find it on Youtube. This is a programme listing, and this is also clearly a WP:PRIMARY source. Someone has watched the show and is describing it. Have a careful read of WP:PRIMARY and the associated footnotes, because this is a point easily misunderstood. A primary source is an account of something that is close to an event. It could be an eyewitness account, and in a sense this is an eyewitness account. The reporter has watched the show and recounted it. We might question if it is also independent, but we don't need to at this stage because the source may be rejected for being a primary source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of non-primary reliable sources and questionable notability. @Liow Jian Fei: care to explain why you moved a declined draft to mainspace without prior discussion? NM 03:54, 10 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!} 01:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The sourcing is wonky. The one listed in Forbes is actually from Billboard and was written by the same person as the first Billboard one. Covered in one source a few times (Billboard). Oaktree b (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also coverage in a Korean newspaper [52], some coverage in Yahoo UK [53] but it looks like a press-release. Oaktree b (talk) 01:35, 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. I'm closing this as Delete as I found BusterD's argument very persuasive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lexie Madden[edit]

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

Former beauty pageant contestant that does not meet WP:GNG and is a case of WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Wyoming. Let'srun (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This does not fit WP:BLP1E as she not only won Miss Wyoming, but came in as 3rd runner up at Miss America 2013, won Wyoming's Miss Junior Royal Miss in 2009 and won Miss Goshen County 2012. The 3rd runner-up spot at bigger pageants is basically a podium style finish at pageants, while say in something like racing, it would be seen as an average result. I feel the sources listed are enough to meet WP:GNG.KatoKungLee (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Just want to note that the 2nd runner up and 1st runner up winners in this competition don't have articles so decent placement in a beauty contest is not an automatic qualifying factor in having a standalone article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is classic BLP1E. Each one of the presented cites (but for the wedding announcement) are local sources concerning her strictly local pageant wins eleven years ago. Any winner would have gotten this local coverage. As a living person, we owe the subject direct detailing with significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. We don't have any of that here, we only have pageant coverage from before she graduated college. And the wedding announcement, which is itself a blog post from her cousin who happened to professionally photograph the wedding (so doubly connected). As a matter of BLP policy, we need much more direct detailing and diverse sourcing before we should justify such an article. BusterD (talk) 09:15, 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 no consensus‎. Three relistings and no consensus here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nimr Baqir al-Nimr Street[edit]

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

Fails GNG – an unremarkable topic: a street in Iran known only for one event – its 2016 rename. Since it has already been PRODded (against all policies, as it was a stub created mere two hours earlier and still being worked on), it now must go through the full deletion discussion. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:09, 26 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!} 18:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article includes a reference from a leading British newspaper, so this is not just a local story. And here is a reference showing that the renaming has been undone: https://www.newarab.com/news/iran-quietly-changes-name-nimr-street-mashhad Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A single old mention in a foreign newspaper is precisely a hallmark of ONEEVENT. Besides, the undoing was of a different street (in Mashhad, not in Tehran).

The nomination is in accordance with WP:NOTTEMPORARY which is a very good policy. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Nimr al-Nimr. The street itself is not notable, and its only WP:SIGCOV is from its renaming for al-Nimr. Longhornsg (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Is there more support for Deletion, Keeping or Merging the article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retracted per below Keep. Meets WP:GEOROAD / WP:GNG. The nomination seems to be around concerns about WP:SUSTAINED. However, there are sources from 6+ years apart about this street, so it meets that criteria. Note that WP:ONEEVENT only applies to biographies, and would not apply given there are two distinct renaming events here. A merge might be in order but I'm not familiar enough with the target to be sure if 2023 coverage of the second name change would it. Given that we don't need a merge as an ATD, it should be treated as an editorial decision. —siro χ o 01:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Siroxo The 2023 article that Eastmain added a week ago is unrelated to the article subject (the news piece is about a similarly named street in another Iranian city). Even though I pointed this out to them immediately, they did not react. I have now removed the 2023 link as unrelated. You are welcome to revisit your !vote since SUSTAINED is certainly not met. — kashmīrī ^TALK 02:02, 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. ✗plicit 02:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Jackson (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This Andre Jackson (disambiguation) page was created a few days ago in anticipation of a favorable Andre Jackson → Andre Jackson (baseball) result at Talk:Andre Jackson#Requested move 5 August 2023. However, since the nomination resulted in "no consensus", this dab page should be deleted per WP:ONEOTHER. The entries for Andre Jackson and Andre Jackson Jr. already have hatnotes pointing to each other, thus making the dab page superfluous. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. —siro χ o 19:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unless there becomes another Andre Jackson to receive a wikipedia article, this isn't needed. Let'srun (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. SWinxy (talk) 00:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. No hesitation or doubt from me, as I'm now seen a frustrating trend here on WP about the rush to create DAB pages with only 2 current entries. Should a 3rd come later, no one will doubt.

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 withdrawn, per improvements to the article. BD2412 T 14:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Ruhl (physicist)[edit]

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

Seems to be a run-of-the-mill professor. No independent sources in the article. Not seeing any indicia of encyclopedic notability in terms of external coverage. BD2412 T 02:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 02:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A stunning pass of WP:Prof#C1 on GS citations. A trout for the nominator (an administrator, no less). Xxanthippe (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Ohio. Skynxnex (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per meeting WP:PROF based on high citation counts of his works (see Scopus via the Authority Control). TJMSmith (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was intrigued by the above comments. I was still surprised when I clicked the "scholar" link. Meets PROF. —siro χ o 04:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the obvious pass of WP:PROF#C1, he passes #C3 as a Fellow of the American Physical Society (included as a category already in the as-nominated article) and his title of Connecticut Professor appears to give him a pass of #C5. This bad nomination should be withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 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 merge‎ to Rubik's Cube. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rubik's Cube in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This appears better than average at first glance but I fear this is still just a random list of media featuring Rubik's Cube and other trivia, failing WP:GNG as an article and WP:NLIST as a list. This is half a list of said random media featuring this toy (ex. "In the South Park episode "The Coon" a Rubik's 3x3x3 cube is seen."; in fact the entire article as often happens started as " a list of cultural references involving the Rubik's Cub" - something that WP:TVTROPES handles better [54] anyway) and trivia about its popularity such as " almost 40,000 entries on YouTube featuring tutorials and video clips of quick solutions" or "there was a Google Doodle about it". Given that the main article on Rubik's Cube has no reception, I think we may entertain merging some stuff there (said trivia about its popularity), to such a section (as it can arguably constitute a section of the article, but not an article itself), but there is no need to keep this as a stand-alone article/list (due to failing aforementioned GNG/NLIST policies for stand-alone stuff). Final damning evidence: not a single source seems to discuss the broad concept of "Rubik's Cube in popular culture", nor is the term "popular culture" mentioned in the article outside the title and categories, which also suggests this article as framed is a big piece of WP:OR. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Popular culture, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This is way better than most pop culture lists. Good chunks of of it is actually about Rubik's Cube rather incidental pop culture references. The Liberty Science Center exhibit should be merged, as well as some of the lead. Much of § Art could be merged too. Perhaps more. —siro χ o 19:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rubik's Cube, though only the 'Art' section has encyclopedic value. The rest are pretty unremarkable WP:IPC. SWinxy (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To the main article. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 12:44, 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 keep‎. Regardless of one's opinion of the article subject, the consensus of the participants in this discussion is that sources establish GNG and this article should be Kept. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkydoll[edit]

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

WP:PROMO CassiJevenn (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's featured in a New York Times article, Vice is ok, with the rest, the article is at notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Draftify with the intent of allowing the author to rescue content into a potential article on NPC streaming. Sourcing clearly establishes notability. All of NYT ([55]), Vice ([56]), Complex ([57]), and The Guardian ([58]) are significant coverage, independent, and should be reliable. Unrelated to deletion, a spot check on the sourcing reveals issues and possible BLP problems; the NYT article doesn't mention anything about her stepfather's death, for instance. I'm going to look a bit deeper at this; if they're significant, draftifying might be preferable here. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC) (edited 03:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC); see comment below)[reply]
I've fixed the sourcing issues I discovered (birth date, stepfather death, and using a sensational headline claim instead of the actual article claim); I think this is fine staying in mainspace. @Benmite I'd personally push for a cleanup on the promotional language and claims (are celebrity viewers on her livestream noteworthy? Is the amount of money she made in one stream? I don't personally know, but it seems like it might not be), but there aren't serious neutrality or BLP issues I can see. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 02:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Returning to this to reconsider in light of the analysis by @SWinxy and @Alpha3031. I can see the 1E arguments here. There are still stories being written about her (e.g. [59], [60]), but it is clear most of the coverage demonstrating notability came during a brief window where the subject went viral in mid-July. I don't agree that coverage is exclusively primary—there is biographical information in articles that is not coming from an interview with the subject—but the biographical information here is surprisingly limited (as noted above, I scrubbed the article of several unsourced BLP claims), and it's not clear to me there's enough information here to write a biography. I'm going to take some time to review the sources more thoroughly this evening, but there is clearly merit to Alpha3031's deletion argument.

Regardless of her notability, I would encourage other editors to maybe dial down the moral panic comments; I'm pretty sure the Kids These Days™ didn't invent flash-in-the-pan celebrities. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for the ping. I've not actually evaluated whether the sources are independent. WP:NOR and RS cover this but primary sources may still be independent sources, this is probably expounded upon in most detail at Wikipedia:Party and person. N requires both though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 23:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I think we're in agreement on that (i.e., secondary and independent are not synonymous, and these sources are certainly independent). As for notability, secondary isn't technically part of GNG, but it's an NBIO requirement and articles being based on secondary sources is an important stipulation of BLP.

I've taken some time to review the essays that you've linked here in detail. They mention specific types of articles like eyewitness news and human interest stories. We can argue about if these qualify as either ("eyewitness" can be defined quite broadly for things like viral TikTok trends), but I imagine it'd be a quick road to getting bogged down in pedantry. To me, the better question is the one you got at in your original comment: using the sources available, can we write an encyclopedic biographical article on the subject?

Reviewing the sources in depth, the biographical details recoverable from them are thin. Most of these articles are about the trend of "NPC streaming," using Pinkydoll as an example since she is the originator of the trend; even the NYT article (which mentions her in the headline and does seem to focus on her content) is pretty sparse in this regard, though it's certainly the strongest source here. I'm convinced there's not enough significant coverage of Pinkydoll herself here for an independent biography.

I do think the sources show that the NPC streaming trend is notable. Since we have no NPC streaming article, I'm making the somewhat unusual ATD suggestion of userifying or draftifying this page so that content can be moved into an article on that subject (I don't think "merge into non-existent page" is a thing, and a straight move wouldn't be appropriate). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 03:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to meeting WP:GNG with reliable sources identified above. --Mvqr (talk) 10:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/tiktok-npc-livestream-pinkydoll-1.6916479, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/17/style/pinkydoll-social-media-livestream.html, etc. which support notability and verifiability. What has our society come to though? - Indefensible (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. I agree that it could definitely use some rewrites, I think it's suitable for an article to be here. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sadly. Nfitz (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per source analysis by Oaktree b. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E. I would consider her burst of popularity from the TikToks as a 1E thing. No lasting notability yet. SWinxy (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Society has always had "entertainment" and "style" news, but that does not obligate us to cover every single tiktok trend, or significant participant thereof. In fact, we are explicitly discouraged from doing so. PROMO is not quite the correct DELREASON here, but this is as close to a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:NOTNEWS and the derived WP:SBST as one is likely to get (except perhaps the last BIO-related AFD I participated in). True, there is no explicit treatment of this in NBIO aside from the abovementioned 1E, but the coverage-based criteria for WP:N are primarily a rule of thumb to measure what we might be able to marshal to meet our content policies. WP:NOT is one of those content policies, if a step down and perhaps a tad more controversial in application than the core NPOV, NOR and V.

Fundamentally, the present coverage does not support an encyclopedic biographical article on the subject. The secondary analysis that we use to form the bones of an article are largely absent (there is perhaps some focusing on the trend itself, but I would prefer to defer judgement on this per WP:DELAY. It would be easier to determine the applicability of SBST given another few months). We can flesh out some facts, sure, but it is difficult to determine what is and is not appropriate to include. I believe it's a reasonable interpretation of WP:NEWSPRIMARY and WP:PRIMARY to exclude the coverage we have on that basis also.

In short, I would consider the existing coverage neither significant nor secondary, instead primary and routine. As such, this is a delete. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Say what you will about what she does, but she's a pioneer in this massive trend and has perfected the "craft". I'm really not at all a big fan of it, but her fame and notability has certainly been earned. ☞ Rim ^{< Talk | Edits >} 23:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources easily meet WP:GNG.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:43, 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 Miss Oklahoma USA. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caitlin Simmons[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG, is a case of WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Oklahoma. Let'srun (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Oklahoma USA. Other than one story from 2016 that's literally just covering a political Facebook post she made and doesn't even seem to be significant coverage usable for a biography ([61]), I was unable to find any sources indicating notability. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 02:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Oklahoma USA as per DyInuge. IncompA 20:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Miss Oklahoma USA, due to WP:BIO1E. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:33, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Let'srun (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and does not meet any subject specific notability guideline. Let'srun (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 00:02, 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!} 00:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Pinto[edit]

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

The subject does not meet any WP:GNG as a former winner of a minor beauty pageant. Sources are only about her becoming Miss India America, which is WP:BLP1E at best. Let'srun (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:GNG and is a case of WP:BLP1E. As for references, the first is borked and the rest are passing mentions. After a quick search, I was able to find some more passing mentions. Yippie! IncompA 20:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Due to WP:BIO1E. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:37, 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.