Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 09 September 11 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snobar[edit]

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

Hello everyone,

As a Palestinian user, I can say that there are over 70,000 restaurants and more than 20,000 bars in Palestine. However, it seems that this region doesn't receive the adequate attention or recognition it deserves. For instance, in the city of Ramallah alone, you can find more than 90 bars, not to mention other cities.

It appears that it's not as famous as it should be, as it's neither the first nor the last bar in Palestine. When compared to the number of other restaurants and bars, it seems not to attract many visitors. Even the available sources are outdated and don't provide much information about the essence or significance of the place. Overall, it can be said that the topic of the article points to an unjustified bubble. Osps7 (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Palestine. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Only passing mentions in the New York Times and The National articles cited in the article. I searched and couldn't find additional WP:SIGCOV. Longhornsg (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 09:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rigdzin Namkha Gyatso Rinpoche[edit]

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

I do not think this Buddhist teacher meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:RELPEOPLE. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added a reference. I have seen some other coverage of him at the European Academy on Religion and Society and News in France, but I'm not sure that either are WP:RS, and in any case neither is more than a mention. I also found mentions in two books, here and here, but again this does not look like significant coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that it has been tagged for notability since 2013. Tacyarg (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete: It looks like he's commonly named as "[Terton] Namkha Rinpoche"[1][2] - not to be confused with "Namkha [Drimed] Rinpoche". He's probably at least marginally notable, and there may well be Tibetan/Nepali/Indian language sources, but determining which (if any) of the more in-depth English-language sources are sufficiently reliable is beyond me, and the better sourced fr-wiki article does not really establish that GNG is met; the potential negative BLP issues appear to remain inconclusive. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:32, 17 September 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! 21:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Osman Pamukoğlu[edit]

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

BLP that is very incorrectly sourced. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Military, and Turkey. UtherSRG (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the Turkish article has many more sources - which I can't help much with presently, but may be able to come back to - so this may not be a lost cause. Also, Turkish newspapers will certainly have more to say about him, if anyone is up to the search. Ingratis (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 23:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete' Examined the 8 references for the Turkish article. The de article and os article weren't referenced which for de certainly is an indication of poor quality. Some are press-releases, several of them are him talking, for example "TURKISH PEOPLE LIVING IN ANATOLIA AND THRACE, THIS CALL IS TO YOU!" and are WP:PRIMARY. and others are videos of him talking to the public, whch are WP:SPS sources. Others are proclamations. You can see his signature at the bottom of the documents. These are non-rs. None of them are WP:SECONDARY sources. It is all him doing his work. scope_creepTalk 04:31, 14 September 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! 21:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Morgan[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG per a lack of sustained independent coverage beyond winning a minor beauty pageant. Let'srun (talk) 21:23, 10 September 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 Archduke Joseph Francis of Austria. The arguments against a standalone article are substantively stronger from a policy perspective. The "keep" !votes contain a lot of assertions (and in one case, ad hominem) that has no bearing on this article. At least one !voter did provide a substantial quantity of sources, but I find the argument persuasive that coverage of a custody battle does not confer notability on the child involved. As far as I can see, no other coverage has been provided that examines the subject of this article in her own right. The target of the redirect has not received much attention, and this discussion is no bar to revising it. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Anna of Saxony (1903–1976)[edit]

Princess Anna of Saxony (1903–1976) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another genealogical entry. All there is to say about her is to whom she was related. Wikipedia is not a genealogy website, however. Surtsicna (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - satisfies WP:ANYBIO as the entrance is in the German national biography as a notable royalty - [3] Raladic (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think merely having a listing in Deutsche Biographie is not satisfactory; there would have to be an accompanying biographical entry (example). This is because DB is not the "German National Biography", but rather a Wikidata-like collection. In the example I gave, the biography comes from the Neue Deutsche Biographie, while in this case the root source is ThePeerage, which is deprecated. Curbon7 (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The criteria for WP:ANYBIO requires an entry (listing) in the national biography, which it has, it doesn't require the entry to be detailed: The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography). which the Neue Deutsche Biographie is per it's own article summary NDB is a comprehensive reference work, similar to Dictionary of National Biography, Dictionary of American Biography, American National Biography, Dictionary of Canadian Biography, Dictionary of Australian Biography, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Diccionario Biográfico Español, Dictionary of Irish Biography, Svenskt biografiskt lexikon, and Österreichisches Biographisches Lexikon 1815-1950 (ÖBL) (Austrian Biographical Dictionary 1815–1950)..
    And the source is not just ThePeerage, is it also recorded in the German National Library - [4] per [5]. Raladic (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I'm the one misunderstanding, but nowhere is it stated that DB is Germany's standard national biographical dictionary. And my point on ThePeerage is because two of the three sources that are cited for the DB entry ([6][7]) both cite ThePeerage and the same genealogy handbook. Curbon7 (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The German National Library link is a catalog entry that cites two wiki pages and a book that contains two sentences on her stating her birthdate and her marriages. She is mentioned in the DB, which contains 850k+ primary/tertiary database entries, not the NDB, and regardless the only info on her is birth/death dates and places and year of marriage to Josef Franz. That is not sufficient for a standalone article. JoelleJay (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable member of the Saxon royal house. She lived before the Internet era, so what we need to do is review the newspaper coverage of her time to expand the article. Bermicourt (talk) 07:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously notable, so there must be sources! is a rather unconvincing argument. Surtsicna (talk) 07:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you search German newspaper databases before nominating this for deletion? Jahaza (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How does one search German newspaper databases?
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, the German culture ministry maintains a decent archive ([8]) and Brigham Young University has a list of others ([9]), but these are far from complete and aren't very user-friendly. Curbon7 (talk) 04:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Austrian National Library has scanned (and made searchable) most old newspaper articles dating back a few hundred years (granted that you can read German in old lettering) via ANNO.
There are a few entries about the Princess and her whereabouts throughout her childhood and upbringing as a noteworthy royalty, including details how she ended up in Germany, after being brought up for court outside th country, as well as announcement of her bethroyal that I just came across from a quick look of the Austrian archives - https://anno.onb.ac.at/anno-suche#searchMode=simple&query=%22Anna+Monika+Pia+von+Sachsen%22&from=1
Some of these details should probably be added to the article and definitely add to notability as newspapers at the time did not waste printer ink if it wasn't of note to the public. Raladic (talk) 04:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A listing in a directory and a trivial genealogy dump at a deprecated website do not establish GNG.
JoelleJay (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep here's a front page story about her in the NY Times as there was an extensive custody battle[10]. And another[11]. More[12][13][14]. There's also a book[15]. This was also of course covered in the German press. Such as here:[16] Jahaza (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In The Sketch[17], in Putnam's Monthly[18], Publishers' Weekly[19]Jahaza (talk) 05:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So it's WP:SINGLEEVENT, in which she played no active role; she was the toddler of two notable people fighting a custody battle. We do not have standalone articles about such individuals, even if they may be named in the press in passing: e.g. the children of Britney Spears and Kevin Federline, of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't access any of the NYT links, but if they're just covering the custody battle then I think I agree with Surtsicna that this qualifies as SINGLEEVENT and could be covered in her parents' articles. The book is non-independent and doesn't count. JoelleJay (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - I really can't see how a child of a legitimate king of a country would not be notable. The only situation I could see that applying to is if a king's kid died during birth or if we had no information minus a name. Even then, those would be a merge, not a deletion.KatoKungLee (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Notability is not inherited. Plenty of children of monarchs are not notable. Curbon7 (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Raldic and WP:ANYBIO. estar8806 (talk) ★ 11:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How does she meet ANYBIO? JoelleJay (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to her husband Archduke Joseph Francis of Austria, and add the custody battle to the articles of both her parents. I'm sympathetic to these types of figures, but am just not seeing the notability here. Simply being related to notable people doesn't automatically make one notable (WP:NOTINHERITED), and the custody battle is 1E and is more reflective of her parents than her. The entries that exist in the DB and GNL are merely catalog entries, i.e. not ones that would satisfy WP:ANYBIO#3. Curbon7 (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While numerically there are more keep !votes at the moment, only the one by Jahaza is substantive and accurate. The others are either a vague handwaving that "of course royal children are notable", or a misinterpretation of ANYBIO. Curbon7 (talk) 01:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, leaning Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per Curbon7. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Curbon7. WP:Notability is not inherited. Fails GNG and BIO.  // Timothy :: talk  00:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are many anti-monarchy thugs and editors here. I'm glad to see all them in one place same time. LoL. IMO, spouses and children of deposed royalty could be notable, because their businesses, charity work, attendance at relatives' notable weddings, or a notable scandal often provides them with media attention per @Bearian:. I have checked the sources above and determined that the article meets the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. 149.18.84.13 (talk) 22:03, 15 September 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 NTTV. Liz Read! Talk! 21:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis and Slick Monty[edit]

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

Two articles about student-produced television series that aired on a university television station, not properly referenced as passing WP:TVSHOW criteria. As always, television shows are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they existed -- the notability test is the reception of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about the show in media independent of itself to externally validate its significance. These, however, are both referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and show no evidence of media coverage whatsoever.
The attempted further notability claim, that they won regional awards for local television production in their own state, would be fine if the articles were well-sourced, but is still not an instant notability clinch without demonstrated passage of GNG either.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt either of these shows from having to have significantly better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect both to NTTV as WP:ATD-R. A partial merge may be appropriate if there is verifiable information that fits well in that article. The fact that there doesn't seem to be any local press about the awards suggests these regional Emmy awards don't confer notability. If someone can find some SIGCOV on the wins for these shows, I'd consider a keep, but I was unable to. —siroχo 20:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for relisting both articles under discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:02, 10 September 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. And it would be useful to have a discussion on the article talk page about a possible Merge to Torque. Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orders of magnitude (torque)[edit]

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

While some similar articles exist, such as Orders of magnitude (acceleration), this list appears to consist of a few random pieces of trivia, with no support that I can find for passing WP:NLIST. LittlePuppers (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Lists. LittlePuppers (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing but trivia. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Acknowledging WP:Otherstuffexists, and also the paucity of information here compared with much of that other stuff, I am undecided so far about how to opine. I am 51:49 in favour of retention. It is properly sourced, and the topic itself is notable. Unless I reverse my opinion, please count this as a keep !vote when closing. Compared to the similar articles this is but a stub. I am not sure that is invalid 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as we should have orders of magnitude articles for commonly measured quantities. Probably the article could be merged to torque at this point of its measly dimensions. I think it will take less than 1 mNm of torque to press a delete button on the keyboard. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't believe I can objectively cast a vote (being the original creator), but I'll say that (at its start) Orders of magnitude (force) was similar in scale. Orders of magnitude (numbers) was yet smaller/worse formatted by quite a margin. If any of this is in breach of Wiki etiquette, please let me know. Qaziquza (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Qaziquza I believe we should interpret that as a !vote to keep. Being the creating editor does not preclude you from offering your formal !vote. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:07, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two quick replies: first of all, my understanding is that yes, you are allowed to vote (and you're doing so in a much more civil way than some article creators I've known :P, don't take this discussion as trying to push you away from contributing or anything); second, I would like to point out that in addition to WP:OSE mentioned above, standards have changed a bit since, oh... 2003. LittlePuppers (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - quite acceptable as a stub with potential for expansion - with trout to heavy-handed AfCing. Ingratis (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Torque. This would be an ok section/paragraph in prose form to provide a sense of what a handful of torque magnitudes correspond to in the everyday experiences of people. It provides some context to an otherwise abstract measure. I don't think should remain as a standalone stub as currently composed. It could be recomposed to something like "List of example torque measurements", but the "magnitudes" isn't as relevant as the examples of measurement to real-world examples. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Initally I rejected the draft version as not being suitable for an article. I then later accepted after several discussions. Many others found it a wrongful rejection and therefore a page which should be listed as an article. Count this a !vote to keep.Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Advisory Board Company[edit]

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

I am unable to find evidence that this company was notable. What isn't in the article mirrors what is -mergers, acquisitions and other business transactions. There are a lot of mentions from when Zients was appointed to the Obama, Biden administrations respectively, but none of it is about the company. None of the awards are notable ones and I'm unable to ind ORG-depth coverage. A redirect to David_G._Bradley#The_Advisory_Board_Company where its history is summarized and sourced wouldn't be bad, but I'm not sure it's particularly helpful to the reader. Star Mississippi 19:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:46, 10 September 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! 16:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Donuts[edit]

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

Per recommendation from the author at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boar's Breath. Cannot find any significant non-local coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete FINALLY! S&%t's starting to make sense around here! Incidentally, I initially believed, when I started writing articles on local businesses, that you needed at least 1 "outside the area" source in order for it to stick. THEN, before writing this article, I read somewhere that purely local sources were OK because they were still independent from the main topic, or something. Now it turns out there was this big brou-ha-ha back at the beginning of May about this very thing, now I don't know WHAT to believe. Listen, I enjoy writing articles on local businesses (especially ones in my area/that I'm familiar with), I just wish you guys would come up with SOMETHING that tells me what local businesses are notable enough for an article. If it's none of them, fine, I'll look for other areas to contribute to. Americanfreedom (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Typically a few good in-depth reliable sources, with at least one applicable to a large/outside audience. In practice, it varies based on what people consider to be local, regional, etc. in a given case and who shows up to !vote in these discussions. The way people interpret these requirements varies somewhat, and some places have a higher concentration of folks who interpret the guidelines in stricter or looser ways, for better or worse. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok! That sounds good! Thanks for the reply and sorry for sounding flippant and PO'd in my response, it's been something that's been stuck in my craw (so to speak) since I started writing about these things.Americanfreedom (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - cannot find and reliable sources of significant coverage. Fails GNG. Grahaml35 (talk) 14:59, 12 September 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! 16:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quirel Masse[edit]

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

Failure of WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:50, 10 September 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.

Just wanted to note that previous deletion of this article was 8 years ago for copyright problems so it wasn't on grounds of coverage or notability. Liz Read! Talk! 16:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Srivastava[edit]

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

No Indication of wp:notability. The most that any of those numerous references discuss him is covering his appointment to his position. All of the others are just coverage where he was either mentioned or quoted in a news story about something else. Article was previously deleted. This review was during NPP. North8000 (talk) 15:27, 10 September 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 speedily deleted‎ as a copyright violation. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vineyard Workers Church (Dapodi)[edit]

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

Absolutely no indication that either this church, or its Pastor in any way meet Wikipedia notability criteria. The only sources cited are a couple of articles describing the Pastor claiming that Coronavirus can be cured through 'special oil' and prayer. An utterly unencyclopaedic and promotional article entirely lacking in merit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 10 September 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. Please move reliable sources from this discussion into the article now that the consensus is to Keep the article. Liz Read! Talk! 16:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nile Eagle FC[edit]

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

Unsourced, fails GNG and NORG, no sources with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth.  // Timothy :: talk  15:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Africa. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep Not unsourced, the source is the RSSSF reference in external links. I was expecting to find nothing at all on this club considering South Sudan is one of the most poorly covered football countries in the world and doesn't even really have a national league - just a cup for regional winners. There's also lots of coverage on Facebook, which seems odd, but it appears the local South Sudanese media groups actually just use Facebook as a website. If not kept, should definitely be merged somewhere so we don't lose the information, even though it's not much at the moment. Non-Facebook sources include: [20] [21] and not GNG: [22] SportingFlyer T·C 20:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per SportingFlyer. Competed in SOuth Sudanese top flight ([23]) and has sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve as above. GiantSnowman 12:04, 13 September 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 Stefanie Joosten. Liz Read! Talk! 16:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Singing to the Sky[edit]

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

Other than being produced by Giorgio Moroder this hasn't got any impact Bedivere (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stefanie Joosten: Only additional coverage I could find was a review from Uncut. No charting in her home country and seemingly unlikely to have done much elsewhere. Already has a solid paragraph in the target article so there's not really anything to merge. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nihachu[edit]

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

This YouTuber does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. NME is the only reliable source of note here, but appears to fall towards WP:INTERVIEW, thus not being wholly independent. Besides that, the only other coverage I could find was her joining a gaming organization: [24]. Everything else was no use to fulfill general notability. Sparkltalk 13:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Video games, Entertainment, Internet, and Germany. Sparkltalk 13:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the sources in this article, as well as those I found in my searches are from unreliable content farms or YouTube videos. The NME source is an interview and therefore not independent. She doesn't have any other significant coverage in reliable sources, so the article fails WP:GNG. ULPS (talk • contribs) 17:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Article does not meet WP:GNG. DrowssapSMM (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; no proper sourcing or notability to be seen anywhere. NegativeMP1 23:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable YouTuber.
FatCat96 (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; she has tons of coverage and would seem to meet WP:BASIC just for having so much coverage that can be combined to show notability. However, here are also some of the better more indepth articles:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 In addition, the NME article is not an interview, but about half quotations and the other half is staff commentary, so it counts towards notability.Hkkingg (talk) 00:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is an energy drink company's article about their collaboration with her, so not a good source. The second does not seem to have proper editorial standards, maybe you can point me to an about me that does explain their standards. Third is by its own admission a blog, with no editorial standards. Fourth (Sportskeeda) has consensus for being unreliable, it allows user-written content. The fifth is The Sun. LADBible (the sixth) is a content farm. The seventh is again, Sportskeeda. Even if you consider NME to count towards notability, there is no other significant coverage in reliable sources. ULPS (talk • contribs) 01:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is poor evidence to demonstrate that there are independent and reliable sources about the subject. There is a strong reliance on primary social media sources and the secondary sources are predominantly tabloids and promotional sources. Independent reliable sources are enormously important in articles about living persons to ensure that the information is accurate and the article does not become a vanity outlet. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sadly, I couldn't find any other sources; most were either one-sentence name drops or plainly unusable as above editors pointed out. For the record however, WP:INTERVIEWS essentially states that not all interviews are primary or non-independent. Although most people often think of Q/A-style questions when mentioning interviews, many articles often contain both interview-esque quotes from the subject and secondary analysis and commentary. The NME source definitely contains secondary, independent analysis of her own quotes. I say this so in the future, if she merits an article, that source also counts towards her notability. I'd also support draftifying the article just in case she receives future coverage. PantheonRadiance (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the subject fails to meet WP:GNG. The sources to argue it being kept are either unreliable, promotional, or not independent of the subject.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serve Georgia[edit]

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

Contested prod, no improvement to referencing. Contested on reason of "came 2nd in election in the table so clearly very notable" Party is a miniscule part of a massive Georgian political coalition, and that coalition came in second. The party has zero presence in national parliament. Current referencing and anything I can find shows a complete failure of WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. Reminder that organizations are not inherently notable nor do they inherit notability from a notable person associated with it (ie. the single person in a regional government currently elected while affiliated with the party.) IceBergYYC (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The party does not have a member in parliament, meaning this is PROMO. Small political group. I can't find overage of them, some things from the State of Georgia in the USA. Oaktree b (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Fricker[edit]

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this actor, and added a stage role and reference, but do not think he meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. The article has been tagged for notability since 2019. Tacyarg (talk) 11:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suraj Musah[edit]

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

Played 4 professional games a few years ago but doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Best source found is Ghana Web, which is a transfer rumour and, on its own, not enough to meet the above guidelines, which require multiple sources showing significant coverage of the subject. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Spiderone, I have been working on the deletion of some of these articles and have nominated a couple of them for deletion under speedy deletion (G7) based on the reason below.

I am the author of this article. The rules for the creation of articles have changed in a while. At the time of creating this article, the Ghana Premier League was one of the league on the wikipedia (Wikiproject Football) notability page for leagues. Which meant plays who had made their debuts in the Ghana Premier League qualified the Notability criteria and therefore articles could be created about them. This has changed. As the author I request for the deletion of this article since it doesn't meet the Football notability and also doesn't meet the general notability criteria.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ampimd (talk • contribs)

Many thanks for your comment and for taking the situation well. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:01, 13 September 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 EastEnders characters (2004)#Freddie Slater. Liz Read! Talk! 16:10, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Slater (EastEnders)[edit]

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

Notability issues. Citadeol(talk) 08:44, 10 September 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 09:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Vancao[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and WP:NACTOR. The current references are obvious databases failing significant coverage. Google Books and Newspaper.com (both archived and non-archived version) have a few hits, 1, 2, 3, but they are obvious non-SIGCOV single hit trivial mentions. Moreover, Vancao's roles for the films are minor instead of being significant/major to meet NACTOR, and all sources covering his roles are just bare mentions or databases. I also don't think a redirect to any of the films are beneficial given this being a mostly unlikely search term given Vancao's extremely minor parts played; and don't think this topic has much potential for drafting. This was previously tagged as A7 by CycloneYoris but declined by Espresso Addict, so taking to AfD is the next logical step. VickKiang (talk) 08:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Yadav politicians[edit]

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

This is a WP:POVFORK of Yadav (surname) ,which existed earlier as List of Yadavs, until moved by a user to current name. This was done probably due to the reason that no WP:RS existed for a large number of entries in this list to verify that many of these people were of Yadav caste. So is true for this list as caste website are used as source and for 80 percent of entries here, no source verifies that they are from Yadav caste. A gross violation of WP:BLP as WP:CASTEID is needed for declaring a person as a member of particular caste. Delition or merger is a way forward.Admantine123 (talk) 08:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:03, 10 September 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 09:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Transparency (philosophy)[edit]

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

Potential hoax, as discovered by Russians. Тай Лунг (talk) 06:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. (1) The article as-is does not contain any information with sources, and the latter (on a generic topic, see #3 below) are not easy to find. (2) The current mathematically-looking text does not describe the subject at all. (3) The topic is quite legit, the term "transparency" is actively used in philosophy (mostly epistemology). However, epistemic transparency already has an article. (4) Generic topic of transparency in philosophy might be notable (there is, for example, doxastic transparency with common traits), but is tricky to write about while avoiding WP:SYNTH. Therefore, quickly delete the current proto-stub, but do not preclude creation of a better version in the future. --Викидим (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: transparency is used in a number of different ways in philosophy depending on the context, not seeing any evidence a unified article is warranted. I agree with Викидим that potentially a better article could be created in future if appropriate sources are found. Shapeyness (talk) 17:50, 11 September 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. Source analyses are convincing. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SSSniperWolf[edit]

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

tagged for notability since "january 2020". the article was created in april 2023, but we won't go there.

ignoring all the primary sources (stuff that doesn't amount to anything for notability), the first source is an interview (not independent), third comes from a gossipy site, fourth is a "forbes profile", which is a joke, eighth and ninth literally just mentions the name, and tenth is reporting on vapid gossip.

a google search turns up nothing but crap like a dexerto source (unreliable), whatever the hell this is, and some new york times article about cultural appropriation that mentions her for some reason.

i note here that there was a previous afd that resulted in delete, but this article was recreated for some reason.

edit: turns out this is the third afd, but it wasn't detected due to the second afd having a lowercase w for some reason. update: this is the fifth afd. this is madness.

ltbdl (talk) 06:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC) (edited 06:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC), 06:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC))[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ltbdl (talk) 06:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The above ignores that this article was kept here, also I found [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], etc. Clearly notable, literally has over 30000000 subsrcibers, many sources like in ongoing high profile career. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    i'll prepare a response to this later. copying your argument from the last afd is not a very convincing argument... ltbdl (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Tuko piece looks really spammy - probably not reliable. The Vogue piece is an interview, not independent. Win.gg should not be used for BLP information per this discussion. The Tubefilter piece is mostly an interview, with surface-level analysis of her view counts/subscribers. SVG.com is an unreliable source per [34]. The AZcentral piece is only good source for notability amonst 9 listed. Having a large number of subscriber count, while impressive, does not automatically grant notability. The fact that the article is kept before is irrelevant as consensus can change at a later date. Because of all this, I find this argument very weak. Ca talk to me! 13:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest looking for reliable sources that come under the topic of video games. I found two sources stating that she had taken part in two different tournament events and have added them to the article. 1keyhole (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ca: As I mentioned in the previous nomination, Tuko is an independent news source based in Kenya. It's about on par with The Guardian. The article does not seem to pull from any specific interviews and looks more like a reporter's intuition to pull from other sources. Conyo14 (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a WP:BFDI situation where there should be good sources, but there simply isn't. Ca talk to me! 00:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Frankly there might be enough partials to make an article, but in its current condition, it is not. Even so, I find that only Tuko is a good enough article. I prefer to have three good sources. Conyo14 (talk) 06:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Boilerplate delsort notices
  • Keep - listed multiple times by the verge, business insider, etc as one the top 30 youtube creators 1keyhole (talk) 10:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @1keyhole: that doesn't contribute squat to notability. ltbdl (talk) 12:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It also seems to be wrong. Socialblade puts the top 100 most subscribed YouTube channel at 37 million subscribers (above the subject's subscriber count), and YouTubers.me puts her at 122. That said, a number of channels on those lists may not fall under "content creator" here. Cortador (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've !voted !delete less than 2 months ago, I can't see how notability has changed in those two months... Oaktree b (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. i voted delete last(?) nomination and looking back through the article, all of the previous issues i had are still there. nothing has happened in that time period to increase notability even a little bit. once again, internet points ≠ notability. DrowssapSMM (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article seems to be built on sources that are primary, unreliable, or only tangentially mention the subject. And "But she has so many subscribers" isn't a reliable source. Cortador (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am mostly commenting here just to cast my vote. Other commenters have already provided adequate sources from news and business websites, as well as good arguments for why this article should stay. She is among the most popular Youtubers to have ever existed -she is very notable. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if, should this article be deleted, a new one should pop up soon after, made by a fan again. Safyrr 21:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @safyrr: so if i'm understanding you correctly, we should keep this just because a new one should pop up soon after, made by a fan again? ltbdl (talk) 02:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt No sign of notability and it's honestly impressive how this article got recreated and not immediately deleted, when it sources crap like "SSSniperWolf Twitter Bio". NegativeMP1 23:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At min she meets WP:BASIC because there is so much coverage on her.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Some of these may not be considered too indepth, but based on WP:BASIC if someone has massive coverage they could be combined to show notability. BTW, my 9-year-old niece is watching her YouTube videos all the time and she is somewhat of a celebrity to many kids and teenagers. People also nominated Kim Kardashians's page for deletion many times. Wikipedia needs to have pages for popular people. This is one of the purposes of Wikipedia, so some of you need to take it easy a little. Hkkingg (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: She has also won Kid's Choice Awards (Gamer of the year) in 2019 and 2020 based on these articles [Kids' Choice Awards 2020:], [ Sssniperwolf Kids Choice Awards... ], so she possibly meets WP:ANYBIO as well. Hkkingg (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to make the case that any of the first three are significant enough as a source? Or would you consider them to be partial? I'm asking as this would push forward my !vote. Conyo14 (talk) 06:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's really not enough to meet BASIC. Current consensus as described in WP:VG/S is that Game Rant (1) shouldn't be used in biographies of living persons, Dexerto (2,4,5) is unreliable, Sportskeeda (3,7) is unreliable, and that SVG (8) is unreliable. This leaves us with two industry publications of unknown reliability (Win.gg and Tubefilter), Nickiswift which is a tabloid gossip website (WP:NOTGOSSIP), and AZcentral which is likely the only reliable source of the lot. Add up everything reliable, and there likely isn't even enough SIGCOV to justify a standalone article about the subject having a YouTube channel and a house for sale. Pilaz (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to be a work still in progress. I removed the Notability tag, which was there from a previous redirect to this page - completely irrelevant. I'm voting "keep", because looking at the history shows so many different versions and redirects of whatever this page started out as, or evolved to, that I don't think that the creations of this article has reached its final phase yet. Let it play out and see how it improves. — Maile (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hkkingg, WP:BASIC has clearly been met. Also listed by Yahoo Finance as one of the 30 richest Youtubers here. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 03:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment - she's also received coverage by Business Insider India as being one of the 30 most popular content creators on YouTube here. The Irish Mirror lists her as the 2nd-highest earning Youtube gamer here. Prolific North (admittedly not sure about RS status for this one, but seems reliable) notes she's the only female streamer in the top 10 here. She's also mentioned in the discussion of streamers in Influencers and Creators: Business, Culture and Practice (Kozinets, Gretzel, Gambetti) though I'm not sure exactly how much, as Google Books isn't giving me a complete preview. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 08:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @satellizer: being rich ≠ notable. ltbdl (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Being rich does not equal famous (e.g. why we don't have every Walton family member). However, notability can be met with WP:BASIC. There are a lot of partials. Personally, I'd rather see two fully-supporting sources to !vote keep. Right now, like the other nomination, I'm undecided. However, the Tuko article is a covered source. So, if anyone wants to provide a reasonable source, then sure I'll !vote keep. In the meantime, remember that AfD is not cleanup. Conyo14 (talk) 05:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes being wealthy does not equal notability in and of itself, but if she's received RS coverage for being one of the 30 most successful people on what is the world's second-largest website, surely that's an indicator of notability. Same with having received RS coverage for winning the Kid's Choice Awards (Gamer of the Year) twice in a row. I'm getting strong WP:IDONTLIKEIT vibes from the nom statement and the badgering of keep !voters. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 08:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: already voted on this, but just noticed that the number of deletion nominations is quintuple the amount of reliable sources, which probably doesn't mean anything, but still... interesting. DrowssapSMM (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that notability doesn't seem to be there. I'm weighing in now only to add that the "awards" she seems to have won seem cosmetic at best...it appears that the award itself has only been given twice, and both times it went to SSSniperWolf. One of the references in this article ("Sssniperwolf Kids Choice Awards Win Called Out by KEEMSTAR") even points out how dubious it is. ChristianCanCook (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete and salt (all variations of the name, as needed). Being rich does not equate to notability; being popular does not equate to notability. The sources presented fail to show GNG/SIGCOV, and as ChristianCanCook pointed out, the awards she has won are... questionable. Additionally, I am... disappointed, by Safyrr's argument that we should keep this article just because a fan will remake it if deleted again. No. That is what salting is for. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per User:SilverTiger12's comments above. Poor sources, and she doesn't seem to have significant coverage. Maybe one day she'll be notable enough for an article but this seems like a WP:TOOSOON case. --My Pants Metal (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt: the sources in the article and those brought forward by Hkkingg are not reliable (most of which are discussed in detail at WP:VG/S and WP:RSN) and/or do not provide significant coverage, leading to WP:BASIC not being met. Tuko seems to just aggregate data from elsewhere without further analysis (analysis of primary sources is something we would expect from a reliable secondary source, per WP:SECONDARY), and I concur with Ca in that the only reliable source available at this time is AZCentral, whose coverage of SSSniperWolf I find really limited (house being bought and sold and subscriber numbers are pretty mundane stuff). The awards/nominations are also too minor to justify keeping this article solely on ANYBIO. Given that it's the 5th time we get a recreation, maybe it's time we apply some WP:SALT to make sure that if this article gets recreated, it is done so in compliance with the existing policies and guidelines. Pilaz (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to disagree wp:basic has been met she has taken part in many events with other celebrities and I provided reliable sources.
    • Game Informer
    • ploygon
    • VentureBeat
    If you check Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources you will see there listed. 1keyhole (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking part in events with other celebrities doesn't make one notable by default, see WP:NOTINHERITED.
    And at the cost of repeating myself, simply being reliable isn't enough: Game Informer, Polygon and VentureBeat do not provide significant coverage, which doesn't help the subject of this article meet WP:BASIC. Pilaz (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding to my previous comment, Satellizer proposed four other sources: GoBankingRates (Yahoo News) seems to simply compile basic information from elsewhere, and I don't think it's really the kind of source we're looking for to gauge reliability, since we're striving to get some sort of analysis per WP:SECONDARY; the same happens with Business Insider India; the Irish Mirror piece only mentions her once, hence not SIGCOV; and while ProlificNorth seems to be a digital advertising industry-oriented outlet with some journalists on its payroll, I can't quite find an editorial policy, so I am also not sure we can slap the RS tag on them. Pilaz (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Really poor quality sources being suggested here. Dexerto, Sportskeeda, and SVG are all unreilable per WP:VG/RS. Gamerant cannot be used to indicate notability. Some of the other commenters already demonstrated how bad the other sources are. Delete and salt, please. TarkusABtalk/contrib 20:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is true, but there are other sources that are actual reliable sources.
    • Game Informer
    • ploygon
    • VentureBeat
    1keyhole (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ex. the Polygon article states "Here's everyone playing in Epic's major Fortnite E3 tournament". Looking at the title itself and after seeing the content, it appears that they didn't talked about SSSniperwolf directly or mainly, so it is not a sogcov and does not help with notability. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per rationales above. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete' This editor has no understanding of what a constitutes a good source. Seems to be WP:CIR issue here. scope creepTalk 20:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Scope_creep Which editor? Also, would anyone here be willing to consider a draftify and salt as opposed to a full deletion? Not all of the sources (but quite a lot of them) are bad, and incubating it into draftspace until editors are fully confident she meets GNG seems like a fairly suitable compromise. PantheonRadiance (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It feels like this YouTuber has been popular for a while now. If she hasn't gotten proper sourcing by now, will she ever? Conyo14 (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball; maybe somehow and sometime in the future, someone will write a reliable secondary source about her for something she does. But it's not like there's nothing in the article worth salvaging. The AZ Central source seems like reliable SIGCOV, and the Business Insider and Yahoo sources could flesh out parts of the article too. Also, the Forbes profile seems to list her as a recipient of the 30 Under 30 award which is a pretty credible claim of significance - at least much more than the Kids Choice Award. PantheonRadiance (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt the subject fails to meet WP:GNG. The sources to argue it being kept are either unreliable, promotional, or not independent of the subject as demonstrated by Pilaz.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The debate consists of keep voters listing sources, and then delete voters saying those sources are bad or unreliable. I think there is a fundamental difference in how the voters are interpreting WP:GNG. Based on how there are so many sources given, and then all of them are dismissed for some reason or another, it seems like the vast majority of sources are unreliable, which means you can make the same argument to show that any youtuber is not notable. 70.27.1.63 (talk) 02:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    and then all of them are dismissed for some reason or another, it seems like the vast majority of sources are unreliable, which means you can make the same argument to show that any youtuber is not notable
    no, the argument is that the vast majority of sources for this specific youtuber are unreliable. ltbdl (talk) 03:05, 17 September 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.

The essential problem here is that some editors think the article should be kept because the references given show notability; others want to delete the article because it is created by a paid editor. After several relists, there's no agreement to which argument has the upper hand.

However, the article is in poor shape in my opinion, so unless it is improved, there will be no prejudice in starting a new AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen P. MacMillan[edit]

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

Non-notable business executive. Some coverage of his resignation/firing from Stryker Corp. Other coverage are mostly about his appointment in various roles, especially followed by shareholder activism by Icahn. But no inherent notability. Sabih omar 05:45, 19 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! 06:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis please. Closing admins are not really supposed to assess sources themselves as that introduces bias and their role is to assess the discussion not judge the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 03:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Please see Special:Contributions/Ck415. It would appear that Ck415 was a one-purpose account, to create corporate profiles. Stephen P. MacMillan was "Created a profile for Stephen MacMillan because he is the CEO of Stryker Corporation."
The others were:
Although not specified as such, this appears to be paid editing. Once he created the corporate profiles, he never edited again. — Maile (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have looked at CNMall41’s refs and they establish notability.
This article’s start as paid editing content is unfortunate and irritating. Nevertheless, it’s irrelevant to article retention at this point.
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think in such egregious cases of WP:NOTCV / WP:NOTPROMO etc, WP:DEL-REASON#14 applies regardless of notability, without prejudice to a proper non-COI NPOV biography being created in the future. —siroχo 07:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bring those @Maile66. I've added some tags I think are appropriate. I started trying to verify some but lost steam pretty quickly. —siroχo 07:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at these articles. They seem very straightforward and nonpromotional. No puffery. In an edit summary for one of the articles, he said he was creating an article because the subject was a Fortune 500 CEO. I take his comment at face value.
In my experience, Wikipedia is a hostile environment for editors legitimately trying increase our coverage of business topics. I’ve been accused of a COI myself just for advocating for an article at AfD. It was very unpleasant.
The reason this guy probably never edited again because of the reception he got: User talk:Ck415. I’ve wondered myself sometimes if I belong here.
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 11:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed tough, there are certainly many good faith contributors who end up making these articles. I've been working on an essay at WP:PROPRO to try to start to address these types of articles, which I refer to generally as "professional profiles". Personally, I don't think puffery is the only way in which these articles act in a promotional capacity, and I hope that essay can explain it a bit more. I'd love your feedback as I've seen your thoughtful insights in many AfDs. —siroχo 22:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To say egregious would not be correct. It lists some of the things he has done but in my experience, a NOTCV page is one that includes a list of all their accomplishments, awards, work history, etc. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are having a serious issue with paid editors who are trying to game the system through AfD. Not only paid editor attempting to keep their client's pages from getting deleted, but competitors of those paid editors trying to delete pages likely to make their competitors look bad. That is something we will always have and can be fought through COIN, and privately through the PAID email reporting. As far as this page, would you consider it notable despite the paid editing concerns? --CNMall41 (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability and paid editing are 2 different things. If it suits Wikipedia's purpose (to accumulate "the sum of all [verifiable and notable] human knowledge"), we'll keep it and use it.
That said, I'm 99% sure this was not a paid editing assignment. It was a genuine effort by someone who got run off.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree. Unfortunately, sometimes good faith editors get run off because their editing patterns mirror that of paid editors. I know from my own experience early on. I also wouldn't vote to delete anything in AfD based on PAID. Likely tag the page, maybe recommend for speedy based on SOCK creation or promotion, but not AfD. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The opening of the creation editor. "Creating a profile on...". That is the industry language for a paid editor. When you read it, there is no depth of quality to to. It is reporting him arriving, leaving, sacked for having a romance. Completely non-notable. There is no coverage for the article. scope_creepTalk 09:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've looked into this but don't feel I can really weigh in since the pertinent sources are paywalled and weirdly they won't show up for me on WP:LIBRARY. This discussion seems to be marginally pertinent. StonyBrook babble 20:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete Fairly routine coverage for a standard CEO UPE article. Arriving and leaving from the position + fired over a romance, all of it routine and all of it WP:PRIMARY. Another junk article. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 09:33, 18 September 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 Luhansk People's Republic. Can also find the discussion at the Talk page. (non-admin closure) iMahesh (talk) 01:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Head of the Luhansk People's Republic[edit]

Head of the Luhansk People's Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason. WP:GNG not passed. Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Governor of Zaporozhye Oblast, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Governor of Kherson Oblast (Russia), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Head of the Donetsk People's Republic Panam2014 (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references include articles about specific events or people, but I don’t see significant coverage of the post of head of LNR anywhere.  —Michael Z. 17:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either Keep or Merge to Luhansk People's Republic, with Donetsk People's Republic#Head of the Donetsk People's Republic as an example. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 18:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per countless articles titled "President of X" where X stands for a country (President of France, President of Palestine, etc.) or subnational entity (Chief Minister of Sindh, Governor of California, etc.). Often we even go further down to posts of city heads (Mayor of London, Governor of Tokyo, etc.). The post of a head of a quasi-independent, even if largely unrecognised country certainly meets WP:GNG. — kashmīrī TALK 20:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know of any RS calling the DPR "quasi-independent", but there are many RS calling it "Russian-controlled" or even "Russian puppet state". Rsk6400 (talk) 07:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Many countries have been called puppet states. I recall the UK being called so during Blair's premiership. And it's fairly routine for smaller countries not to be entirely independent of their bigger neighbours; nor is it unusual for bigger powers to install puppet regimes elsewhere. — kashmīrī TALK 11:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was that your term "quasi-independent" is not supported by RS that I know of. But that's irrelevant, since the only point that matters here is the absence of "significant coverage" in RS (a quote from GNG). Rsk6400 (talk) 06:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This was never a quasi-independent country. The post of its puppet head is not an encyclopedic subject, and independent secondary sources don’t write about it. GNG doesn’t say anything resembling the argument above, and the conclusion of “certainly meets” is based on nothing and wrong.  —Michael Z. 19:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mzajac Neither London nor Tokyo have ever been independent countries, yet we have articles about those posts, so your attempt to base notability on sovereignty fails. — kashmīrī TALK 18:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You’re missing my points.  —Michael Z. 19:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Luhansk People's Republic or Delete. The article doesn't contain any sourced information about the office as such (like a scholarly or even journalistic analysis of its functions), only a list of officeholders. There aren't even sufficient sources that "Head" is the official title in English (The Reuters source uses both "chief" and "head", the latter seeming to be a translation by Reuters from a Russian video, the Kremlin source uses "acting head" for the period after the annexation.) Rsk6400 (talk) 06:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - An encyclopaedic article can and should be written about the chief executive office of a state, even a largely unrecognised one (per Kashmiri). This article, though, is not that. It needs RS and text about the office (per Rsk6400) as well as the officeholders that currently appear. If Draftify is not on the table, I'd go with the deletionists on this one and hope someone comes along and makes a better article later. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Russia. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge to Luhansk People's Republic. This article could in the future be revisited with more sources as its own page, but at present not enough reliable information is cited to warrant its own page. Once there is more information regarding the office, this should be redrafted. Sheeredit3 (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sheeredit3, you just started editing two days ago, how did you find your way to this AFD discussion, knowing correct terminology and code? Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Draftify: I'm convinced the subject is highly likely to be notable. There are thousands of law articles on the Republics if you check google scholar and I'm highly skeptical of claims this topic is non-notable. However, I do concede the sourcing concerns of the current article so I'd support draftifying until its fixed. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:02, 6 September 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! 06:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak merge or draftify Although notability is trivial to demonstrate, the article is just a stub right now. The table of Heads can be moved to the main article if it isn’t there already.
With that said, if the article actually contained anything substantially useful, or if it were to be expanded significantly during the discussion, I would vote keep in that case since the topic itself is absolutely notable.
In other words, I agree fully with @Last1in.
Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or simply redirect to Luhansk People's Republic -- setting aside whether notability could be demonstrated for the subject, given the lack of available, meaningful coverage a redirect to the related topic is appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 15:23, 19 September 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. After several weeks, nobody has put in a good argument specifically for keeping the article, only that some of the content could be put in a different article.

If anyone would like the contents of this article userfied for further work, let me know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of animated feature films awards[edit]

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

Article of uncertain utility, whose title isn't really an accurate reflection of the contents. This isn't a list of animated film awards per se, but an exhaustive series of tables of every individual film that won various animated film awards -- but since each of those awards either already has or should have a standalone list of its own winners anyway, there's very little pressing need for an omnibus one-stop-shopping platform to table all of their winners together.
Further, some of those tables have so many columns that they're side-scrolling well past the rightmost margin of the page, which is poor article design as tables should really be kept to a fixed left-to-right width — sidescrolling past the left or right margins negatively impacts the article's readability, and defeats any potential purpose of tabling the winners of different awards together in the first place: if the idea was "to provide a comparison of the winners of different awards", but it's impossible to compare the winners of any awards whose columns are more than one margin's width away from each other because there's no way to see those two columns on screen at the same time, then what was the point?
I'm certainly willing to withdraw this if somebody's willing to tackle converting it into a genuine list of awards, which just links to each award's own standalone list of its own winners instead of trying to comprehensively table all the winners itself, but it's just not all that useful (or accurately titled) in its current format. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Comics and animation. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Lists. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment List if a bit of a mess as it is right now but I don't see in concept anything wrong with listing awards for feature films.★Trekker (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rename it List of winners of awards won by animated feature films. The table should be changed so there is a scrollbar for the bottom. Dream Focus 12:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a scrollbar to scroll across the tables — the problem isn't that such a scrollbar is somehow lacking, it's that there shouldn't be any need for a scrollbar because content should never extend past the page's existing right margin in the first place.
    And as for just renaming it, the question remains, why would an omnibus "list of winners of awards won by animated feature films" even be necessary in the first place? Since any notable award will already have its own standalone list of its own winners anyway, why would we also need a one-stop-shopping list to view all of their winners together, separately from the standalone lists that already exist? Bearcat (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not commenting on this nomination itself at all, but just thought I'd note that there are many different screen sizes. And the reason we have side scrolling, is for reasons such as this. But that's just a question of page formatting, and I presume, has nothing to do with the question of whether a page should be deleted... - jc37 18:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And properly formatted content that's sticking within standard margins adjusts itself to whatever the reader's screen resolution is, so that sidescrolling remains unnecessary regardless because the table self-adjusts rather than becoming a sidescroller. So different screen resolutions aren't a riposte to the sidescrolling problem, because a properly formatted table just readjusts itself to stay inside whatever the user's margins are at any resolution. Bearcat (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:29, 25 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! 02:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It needs work. For instance, it follows the organization of the current list -- is the United Kingdom part of Europe? Opinions may vary about the UK and Europe these days, but France -- isn't France still in Europe?
Also, it's extremely weighted towards the U.S. - lots of local film critic awards (San Diego, Seattle, etc.). I'm not sure that's a problem to solve this week, however.
@Bearcat
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After several hours working on my draft, I discovered this:
Many awards appear on that list or my list but not both.
I'm turning in. I'll look at this more tomorrow.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see LISTN being met, and I don't see what navigational purpose is served that isn't already covered by existing lists of awards and films. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:05, 8 September 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! 06:46, 10 September 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. Please make sure these sources find their way into the article. Liz Read! Talk! 06:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ryu Nugraha[edit]

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

poorly written article about an unnotable footballer that has been proposed for deletion, had the prod reverted, draftified, moved into article space without reason, a7'd, flipped upside down and had a drizzle of oil added, and still no claim to notability. ltbdl (talk) 06:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman:, [35], [36], [37], [38], among amy many more Indonesian sources (search up pemain ryu nugraha). Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 18:03, 14 September 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. Source analyses are convincing. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SSSniperWolf[edit]

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

tagged for notability since "january 2020". the article was created in april 2023, but we won't go there.

ignoring all the primary sources (stuff that doesn't amount to anything for notability), the first source is an interview (not independent), third comes from a gossipy site, fourth is a "forbes profile", which is a joke, eighth and ninth literally just mentions the name, and tenth is reporting on vapid gossip.

a google search turns up nothing but crap like a dexerto source (unreliable), whatever the hell this is, and some new york times article about cultural appropriation that mentions her for some reason.

i note here that there was a previous afd that resulted in delete, but this article was recreated for some reason.

edit: turns out this is the third afd, but it wasn't detected due to the second afd having a lowercase w for some reason. update: this is the fifth afd. this is madness.

ltbdl (talk) 06:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC) (edited 06:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC), 06:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC))[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ltbdl (talk) 06:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The above ignores that this article was kept here, also I found [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], etc. Clearly notable, literally has over 30000000 subsrcibers, many sources like in ongoing high profile career. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    i'll prepare a response to this later. copying your argument from the last afd is not a very convincing argument... ltbdl (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Tuko piece looks really spammy - probably not reliable. The Vogue piece is an interview, not independent. Win.gg should not be used for BLP information per this discussion. The Tubefilter piece is mostly an interview, with surface-level analysis of her view counts/subscribers. SVG.com is an unreliable source per [48]. The AZcentral piece is only good source for notability amonst 9 listed. Having a large number of subscriber count, while impressive, does not automatically grant notability. The fact that the article is kept before is irrelevant as consensus can change at a later date. Because of all this, I find this argument very weak. Ca talk to me! 13:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest looking for reliable sources that come under the topic of video games. I found two sources stating that she had taken part in two different tournament events and have added them to the article. 1keyhole (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ca: As I mentioned in the previous nomination, Tuko is an independent news source based in Kenya. It's about on par with The Guardian. The article does not seem to pull from any specific interviews and looks more like a reporter's intuition to pull from other sources. Conyo14 (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a WP:BFDI situation where there should be good sources, but there simply isn't. Ca talk to me! 00:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Frankly there might be enough partials to make an article, but in its current condition, it is not. Even so, I find that only Tuko is a good enough article. I prefer to have three good sources. Conyo14 (talk) 06:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Boilerplate delsort notices
  • Keep - listed multiple times by the verge, business insider, etc as one the top 30 youtube creators 1keyhole (talk) 10:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @1keyhole: that doesn't contribute squat to notability. ltbdl (talk) 12:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It also seems to be wrong. Socialblade puts the top 100 most subscribed YouTube channel at 37 million subscribers (above the subject's subscriber count), and YouTubers.me puts her at 122. That said, a number of channels on those lists may not fall under "content creator" here. Cortador (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've !voted !delete less than 2 months ago, I can't see how notability has changed in those two months... Oaktree b (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. i voted delete last(?) nomination and looking back through the article, all of the previous issues i had are still there. nothing has happened in that time period to increase notability even a little bit. once again, internet points ≠ notability. DrowssapSMM (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article seems to be built on sources that are primary, unreliable, or only tangentially mention the subject. And "But she has so many subscribers" isn't a reliable source. Cortador (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am mostly commenting here just to cast my vote. Other commenters have already provided adequate sources from news and business websites, as well as good arguments for why this article should stay. She is among the most popular Youtubers to have ever existed -she is very notable. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if, should this article be deleted, a new one should pop up soon after, made by a fan again. Safyrr 21:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @safyrr: so if i'm understanding you correctly, we should keep this just because a new one should pop up soon after, made by a fan again? ltbdl (talk) 02:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt No sign of notability and it's honestly impressive how this article got recreated and not immediately deleted, when it sources crap like "SSSniperWolf Twitter Bio". NegativeMP1 23:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At min she meets WP:BASIC because there is so much coverage on her.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Some of these may not be considered too indepth, but based on WP:BASIC if someone has massive coverage they could be combined to show notability. BTW, my 9-year-old niece is watching her YouTube videos all the time and she is somewhat of a celebrity to many kids and teenagers. People also nominated Kim Kardashians's page for deletion many times. Wikipedia needs to have pages for popular people. This is one of the purposes of Wikipedia, so some of you need to take it easy a little. Hkkingg (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: She has also won Kid's Choice Awards (Gamer of the year) in 2019 and 2020 based on these articles [Kids' Choice Awards 2020:], [ Sssniperwolf Kids Choice Awards... ], so she possibly meets WP:ANYBIO as well. Hkkingg (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to make the case that any of the first three are significant enough as a source? Or would you consider them to be partial? I'm asking as this would push forward my !vote. Conyo14 (talk) 06:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's really not enough to meet BASIC. Current consensus as described in WP:VG/S is that Game Rant (1) shouldn't be used in biographies of living persons, Dexerto (2,4,5) is unreliable, Sportskeeda (3,7) is unreliable, and that SVG (8) is unreliable. This leaves us with two industry publications of unknown reliability (Win.gg and Tubefilter), Nickiswift which is a tabloid gossip website (WP:NOTGOSSIP), and AZcentral which is likely the only reliable source of the lot. Add up everything reliable, and there likely isn't even enough SIGCOV to justify a standalone article about the subject having a YouTube channel and a house for sale. Pilaz (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to be a work still in progress. I removed the Notability tag, which was there from a previous redirect to this page - completely irrelevant. I'm voting "keep", because looking at the history shows so many different versions and redirects of whatever this page started out as, or evolved to, that I don't think that the creations of this article has reached its final phase yet. Let it play out and see how it improves. — Maile (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hkkingg, WP:BASIC has clearly been met. Also listed by Yahoo Finance as one of the 30 richest Youtubers here. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 03:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment - she's also received coverage by Business Insider India as being one of the 30 most popular content creators on YouTube here. The Irish Mirror lists her as the 2nd-highest earning Youtube gamer here. Prolific North (admittedly not sure about RS status for this one, but seems reliable) notes she's the only female streamer in the top 10 here. She's also mentioned in the discussion of streamers in Influencers and Creators: Business, Culture and Practice (Kozinets, Gretzel, Gambetti) though I'm not sure exactly how much, as Google Books isn't giving me a complete preview. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 08:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @satellizer: being rich ≠ notable. ltbdl (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Being rich does not equal famous (e.g. why we don't have every Walton family member). However, notability can be met with WP:BASIC. There are a lot of partials. Personally, I'd rather see two fully-supporting sources to !vote keep. Right now, like the other nomination, I'm undecided. However, the Tuko article is a covered source. So, if anyone wants to provide a reasonable source, then sure I'll !vote keep. In the meantime, remember that AfD is not cleanup. Conyo14 (talk) 05:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes being wealthy does not equal notability in and of itself, but if she's received RS coverage for being one of the 30 most successful people on what is the world's second-largest website, surely that's an indicator of notability. Same with having received RS coverage for winning the Kid's Choice Awards (Gamer of the Year) twice in a row. I'm getting strong WP:IDONTLIKEIT vibes from the nom statement and the badgering of keep !voters. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 08:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: already voted on this, but just noticed that the number of deletion nominations is quintuple the amount of reliable sources, which probably doesn't mean anything, but still... interesting. DrowssapSMM (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that notability doesn't seem to be there. I'm weighing in now only to add that the "awards" she seems to have won seem cosmetic at best...it appears that the award itself has only been given twice, and both times it went to SSSniperWolf. One of the references in this article ("Sssniperwolf Kids Choice Awards Win Called Out by KEEMSTAR") even points out how dubious it is. ChristianCanCook (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete and salt (all variations of the name, as needed). Being rich does not equate to notability; being popular does not equate to notability. The sources presented fail to show GNG/SIGCOV, and as ChristianCanCook pointed out, the awards she has won are... questionable. Additionally, I am... disappointed, by Safyrr's argument that we should keep this article just because a fan will remake it if deleted again. No. That is what salting is for. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per User:SilverTiger12's comments above. Poor sources, and she doesn't seem to have significant coverage. Maybe one day she'll be notable enough for an article but this seems like a WP:TOOSOON case. --My Pants Metal (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt: the sources in the article and those brought forward by Hkkingg are not reliable (most of which are discussed in detail at WP:VG/S and WP:RSN) and/or do not provide significant coverage, leading to WP:BASIC not being met. Tuko seems to just aggregate data from elsewhere without further analysis (analysis of primary sources is something we would expect from a reliable secondary source, per WP:SECONDARY), and I concur with Ca in that the only reliable source available at this time is AZCentral, whose coverage of SSSniperWolf I find really limited (house being bought and sold and subscriber numbers are pretty mundane stuff). The awards/nominations are also too minor to justify keeping this article solely on ANYBIO. Given that it's the 5th time we get a recreation, maybe it's time we apply some WP:SALT to make sure that if this article gets recreated, it is done so in compliance with the existing policies and guidelines. Pilaz (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to disagree wp:basic has been met she has taken part in many events with other celebrities and I provided reliable sources.
    • Game Informer
    • ploygon
    • VentureBeat
    If you check Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources you will see there listed. 1keyhole (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking part in events with other celebrities doesn't make one notable by default, see WP:NOTINHERITED.
    And at the cost of repeating myself, simply being reliable isn't enough: Game Informer, Polygon and VentureBeat do not provide significant coverage, which doesn't help the subject of this article meet WP:BASIC. Pilaz (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding to my previous comment, Satellizer proposed four other sources: GoBankingRates (Yahoo News) seems to simply compile basic information from elsewhere, and I don't think it's really the kind of source we're looking for to gauge reliability, since we're striving to get some sort of analysis per WP:SECONDARY; the same happens with Business Insider India; the Irish Mirror piece only mentions her once, hence not SIGCOV; and while ProlificNorth seems to be a digital advertising industry-oriented outlet with some journalists on its payroll, I can't quite find an editorial policy, so I am also not sure we can slap the RS tag on them. Pilaz (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Really poor quality sources being suggested here. Dexerto, Sportskeeda, and SVG are all unreilable per WP:VG/RS. Gamerant cannot be used to indicate notability. Some of the other commenters already demonstrated how bad the other sources are. Delete and salt, please. TarkusABtalk/contrib 20:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is true, but there are other sources that are actual reliable sources.
    • Game Informer
    • ploygon
    • VentureBeat
    1keyhole (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ex. the Polygon article states "Here's everyone playing in Epic's major Fortnite E3 tournament". Looking at the title itself and after seeing the content, it appears that they didn't talked about SSSniperwolf directly or mainly, so it is not a sogcov and does not help with notability. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per rationales above. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete' This editor has no understanding of what a constitutes a good source. Seems to be WP:CIR issue here. scope creepTalk 20:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Scope_creep Which editor? Also, would anyone here be willing to consider a draftify and salt as opposed to a full deletion? Not all of the sources (but quite a lot of them) are bad, and incubating it into draftspace until editors are fully confident she meets GNG seems like a fairly suitable compromise. PantheonRadiance (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It feels like this YouTuber has been popular for a while now. If she hasn't gotten proper sourcing by now, will she ever? Conyo14 (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball; maybe somehow and sometime in the future, someone will write a reliable secondary source about her for something she does. But it's not like there's nothing in the article worth salvaging. The AZ Central source seems like reliable SIGCOV, and the Business Insider and Yahoo sources could flesh out parts of the article too. Also, the Forbes profile seems to list her as a recipient of the 30 Under 30 award which is a pretty credible claim of significance - at least much more than the Kids Choice Award. PantheonRadiance (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt the subject fails to meet WP:GNG. The sources to argue it being kept are either unreliable, promotional, or not independent of the subject as demonstrated by Pilaz.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The debate consists of keep voters listing sources, and then delete voters saying those sources are bad or unreliable. I think there is a fundamental difference in how the voters are interpreting WP:GNG. Based on how there are so many sources given, and then all of them are dismissed for some reason or another, it seems like the vast majority of sources are unreliable, which means you can make the same argument to show that any youtuber is not notable. 70.27.1.63 (talk) 02:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    and then all of them are dismissed for some reason or another, it seems like the vast majority of sources are unreliable, which means you can make the same argument to show that any youtuber is not notable
    no, the argument is that the vast majority of sources for this specific youtuber are unreliable. ltbdl (talk) 03:05, 17 September 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 South Western railway line, Queensland. Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bonathorne railway station[edit]

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

Per WP:NTRAINSTATION, "Train stations have no inherent notability and are not presumed notable for simply being train stations". At present, this train station does not seem to pass GNG. The two sources cited are routine coverage. A quick Google search did not provide better coverage. Significa liberdade (talk) 05:23, 10 September 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. The article has been reduced to a stub and there is a consensus that is can be further improved, and that deletion is not appropriate. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thoma of Villarvattom[edit]

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

No verifiable sources. The links to the sources provided seems broken. The article mentions that the descendents of the family is the "Varghese family" which is a common surname among christians in Kerala. Several sources like C.Achutha Menon's Cochin state manual state that the last king of villarvattom(who was a kshatriya) had no legal heirs and was becoming extinct and instead of adopting a kshatriya member, he handed over the kingdom to his son, the Paliath achan with the sanction of the King of cochin in the year 1599. This states that the Paliath achan family were his descendents. No proper evidences to back up the article. The article mentions that the family themselves were Christian, but several sources mention only a single ruler of the Kshatriya family who converted to Christianity. The rest of the article seems like a self-spun story which tries to show the origin of a Christian royal family in Kerala. So, on account of having all such false claims and improper references, I think this article requires deletion. Pedia.01110 (talk) 06:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also with regards to sources, many of them are from blogs, which are against the policies of Wikipedia. This link http://nasrani.net/2007/04/15/raja-thoma-villarvattam-king-of-the-nasranis/ andhttps://web.archive.org/web/20120301220721/http://cs.nyu.edu/kandathi/a_j_john.html are blogs. http://www.smcim.org/church/chendamangalam/article/93 and http://www.synodofdiamper.com/mal/index.php are also non-verifiable since they are merely the websites of churches. The first link,http://www.smcim.org/church/chendamangalam/article/93, clearly is broken and the second link merely provides vague facts without any evidence. This link https://books.google.com/books?id=j7VFEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA39 provided is from an author who contradicts with histories written by other authors in many ways. One such example is from the title, HH Goda varma the permanent king of Cochin, the author goes on to say the Goda Varma, a Hindu kshatriya, was the one who converted to Christianity. This point by itself is contradicted by another link provided in this article https://web.archive.org/web/20130824015059/http://www.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/mmonline.dll/portal/localContentView.do?district=Cochin&contentId=14805595&programId=1079897624&tabId=16&BV_ID=@@@ which states that Rama Varma Apattiri Koviladhikari was the last king. Furthermore, I think the case of including a novel about the villarvattom dynasty concludes that this whole narrative was built up from a purely spun up fantasy about a Christian royal family. There have however been many claims from others about the presence of a Christian king, but this could however be a single isolated case rather than what the article states. In this link https://web.archive.org/web/20130824015059/http://www.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/mmonline.dll/portal/localContentView.do?district=Cochin&contentId=14805595&programId=1079897624&tabId=16&BV_ID=@@@, it states that there is a probability that the villarvattom ruler could be a Christian king. Again, this is merely a vague evidence as to the presence of a Christian royal family in Kerala. Pedia.01110 (talk) 09:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there has been no participation here so far. The nominator has said a lot, I encourage them to allow other editors to assess the arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • TNT - The subject of the article did exist, and he is discussed in scholarly sources about the Syro-Malabar Catholics. Source research is painful due to the overlap in name between the article's subject and the overall community (Mar Thoma Christians. Before getting into a discussion of WP:GNG, though, none of those sources support the text in this article (or at least not much of it). Without a way to sift the facts from the WP:OR and WP:ADVOCACY, there is nothing here to salvage for a merge. As an AtD, stripping to a true stub with something like, "Raja Thoma Villarvattom was a feudal monarch of Villarvattom, a vassal fiefdom of the Kingdom of Cochin," would work as well. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Previous AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villárvattam
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 10 September 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! 04:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Lynne[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, page reads like WP:RESUME. Technically satisfies criteria 6 of WP:NACADEMIC but is in a position of power at a for-profit university (business) as opposed to a traditional university. Unsure if this qualifies. 30Four (talk) 04:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral - TJMSmith you need to do some editing to this article. It does indeed look like a resume, but that's because you put it together like a list of accomplishments. Please consider re-working this article into a flowing prose article, paragraphs, etc. — Maile (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is written as a professional profile, and WP:NOTLINKEDIN. —siroχo 01:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not very familiar with American university system, but the profile makes the subject look like a businessman, not an academic, and the article on University of Phoenix does not suggest it is a high-quality institution. I don't think Lynne is the type of subject that WP:PROF #6 was designed for? Espresso Addict (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think that for this institution, treating him as a businessman rather than as an academic makes more sense, so we should use WP:NBIO not WP:NPROF. I didn't find any news stories with in-depth coverage of him that would count, so I don't think he passes. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. The University of Phoenix is in the process of becoming a state-related university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collegemeltdown2 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This might change in the future, but as it stands, the University of Phoenix is not the kind of entity that WP:PROF#C6 is talking about; I concur that treating him as a businessman instead of an academic is more sensible. And treating him in that manner, there doesn't seem to be anything substantial to make a wiki-notability case upon. XOR'easter (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Brody[edit]

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

Although the article has had a notability tag since 2014, the article only has one source. Devoted to a secondary character on CSI, most of the article provides information about plot regarding the character. A quick Google search did not provide sources proving greater notability from reliable sources (mostly fandom cites). Significa liberdade (talk) 04:14, 10 September 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 see no consensus here among participating editors to Keep or Delete this article. Liz Read! Talk! 02:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Masbouq[edit]

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

Poorly written mirror of Assadollah Adeli, both only notable for the WP:1E of apparently destroying three aircraft with one missile. He is not independently notable, failing WP:GNG Mztourist (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Really? "He was an elite pilot in the Iranian Air Force and He mainly flew with Assadullah Adeli in the rear cabin" so what was he? The pilot or the radar intercept officer? Do you really think the page is Category:User en-5? Mztourist (talk)14:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is a problem with my edits, it would be great if you could fix it. I will never allow you to write to me for sarcasm. Here is Wikipedia. There should be no sarcasm here.--Patricia (Talk) 19:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read WP:COMPETENCE, because the pages you have created about these Iranian pilots do not meet the necessary standard of English nor satisfy WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk)04:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read and follow the policies. I say again that your edit in emphasizing en-5 was an example of harassment.--Patricia (Talk) 07:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ignoring the GNG issues, the level of English on this page (and on the other Iranian pilot pages which have already been deleted) clearly does not meet the required standard and is certainly not en-5. Mztourist (talk) 07:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Patricia, thank you for your work improving coverage of the Iranian Air Force during the Iran-Iraq War. Their pilots did an amazing job.
    I haven’t checked if this article’s subject is notable but if the English is low quality, there are plenty of people who can clean it up. Just ignore the criticism.
    —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then why don't you rewrite it User:A. B.? Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mztourist, I'm happy to help if this article is kept. In the meantime, the quality of English is not the issue at hand - instead it's the subject's notability. Deletion ≠ cleanup; we don't delete articles for the quality of their prose.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your message strengthened and encouraged me. appreciate that.—Patricia (Talk) 16:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possibly Merge with Assadollah Adeli. Sourcing on this one is weaker than the Adeli article, even though both appear to be WP:1E as noted earlier. This article has similar issues to the other Iranian pilot articles that have been here recently (scanty sourcing and poor quality text). Intothatdarkness 15:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suspect that the topic is likely notable and therefore deserves to be kept - however I'm not sure it is ready for mainspace. For example there are two references that look different but are mirrors of each other. My advice to User:Patricia Mannerheim is to focus on finding high quality references in Persian that underline the notability of the topic. On the assumption that those exist, my !vote is to draftify until the necessary improvements in finding sources to WP:VERIFY statements in the article is completed. Finally I don't think the English is particularly bad and it would be improved during normal cleanup. JMWt (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added 3 refs in persian. now: source no.3,4 and 9. I hope these resources are useful for the nobility of the article.—Patricia (Talk) 15:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can only access the first and third ref. The first is largely about the F-14 Tomcat in Iranian service and the WP:1E, while the third is about the WP:1E, so they add nothing to his notability. Mztourist (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Another ref added. Now it's no.1. In this reference clearly and specific mentioned to subject. —Patricia (Talk) 20:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

  • Keep subject meets notability guidelines with sources provided. 109.37.131.169 (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • An IP account which became active today is in no position to assess notability. Mztourist (talk) 08:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can’t help my IP address changes, and what you state is not a Wikipedia guideline. And bye the way, is it really needed to reply to everybody? 109.37.131.169 (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why don't you created an account then? Wizened Users like me wouldn't then assume that you're a banned User editing via an IP. Mztourist (talk) 08:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the IP’s contributions, they appear very knowledgeable about aviation-related topics. I especially value their comments because of that.
    I focus on the content of comments at AfDs, not the person making them. That’s how the closing admin will assess them in deciding on article retention.
    Witness badgering is always unhelpful and often counterproductive at AfDs, just as in the courtroom. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:A. B. there is no badgering here as you suggest. An IP who doesn't create an account but comes to AfD on what appears to be their first day on WP is inherently suspicious. So you value a 3 day old account as much as Users who have been here for years? Mztourist (talk) 08:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mohammad Masbouq: He was born in the1950 and died on 29 December 2021. In 1967, he was employed in the army's ground force and entered the officers' university as a student. It was the third year that a group of air force went to this university to recruit pilots and after meeting with them, he was placed in the quota of air force officers. In the same way, in 1970, he was sent to America after passing the preparations and preparatory flights with a Piper plane at Kalamghi Airport. He completed the T41 and T37 aircraft courses, but his T38 course was left unfinished. For this reason, he returned to the country in February 1972 and when the F14 aircraft arrived in Iran, Masbouq was selected for the rear cabin and was sent to America once again. In the summer of 1974, he returned to Iran and was first transferred to the 8th Shokri base in Isfahan, and in early 1975, he completed the F14 flight tactical course with the presence of American instructors, and in April, he was transferred to the 7th Shukri base in Shiraz. At that time, it was known as the 2nd transport base, and together with a group of his colleagues, he established the first Tomcat hunting battalion under the name of the 71st hunting tactical battalion. He was sent to America as a battalion commander or SOS in June 1979, and after the victory of the revolution, he returned to the country and continued to serve in the same battalion. On the day of the start of the imposed war, he flew with Yadullah Khalili at 14:30 to prevent another attack by Iraqi aggressor planes. At the end of his service, his record is decorated with more than 5200 operational, tactical and training flight hours. Shooting down 16 enemy planes, 12 of which were approved by the authorities, is one of his honors. He has previously spent 5 years and 4 months of the Holy Defense as the commander of the F-14 maintenance battalion at the 7th Shokri base in Shiraz. He retired in August 2000 with the rank of second brigadier and 32 years of service. The famous memory of this pilot is related to the second day of 7 January 1981, when he went in the rear cockpit of 1st Lieutenant Asadullah Adeli to counter the attack of three Iraqi MiG planes. He fired the Phoenix missile from a distance of 38 miles towards the plane in the middle of the group of three planes, and by destroying the target, two other birds were also destroyed due to the explosion and fire of the plane. Another past memory is from the war of November 22, 1980, when they were patrolling the Persian Gulf with Captain Iraj Siros in a night flight. They heard the voice of Captain Hossein Del Hameed, who landed in the water with an umbrella after falling and was asking for help between Bushehr and Bandar Imam. Masbouq says he was wandering in the sea for nearly 10 hours when they heard his voice. After determining the position of Del Hamid, the F14 rescue helicopter tried to rescue the pilot. Del Hamid was released from the life ring due to physical weakness and fell into the water again. However, more than 52 hours later, when everyone had given up hope that he was alive, he was again pulled from the water by a fishing boat. Another previous memory is related to the martyrdom of the pilot Mohammad Hashem Al-Agha on August 9, 1984, the day when the Tomcats were supposed to cover the first half of the convoy of merchant ships and oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. He was flying from Isfahan base. The last flight of this day was carried out by Colonel Mohammad Hashem Al-Agha and his rear cabin lieutenant Mohammad Rostampour. Previously, he accompanied Captain Asadollah Adeli, who flew from Shiraz and was supposed to replace Al-Agha and Rostampour, in this mission. In this mission, despite previous warnings to Al-Agha, this martyred pilot announced that he wanted to target the enemy plane with a thermal missile, when Al-Agha and Rustampur's plane was attacked by enemy fighters and crashed.
Terrible translation that anyone could obtain by Google translating the ref. Mztourist (talk) 03:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m unclear how you know this is a bad translation - do you read Farsi?
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking about the quality of English produced by the machine translation. Mztourist (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am definitely not here to please you. Believe me, I'm here to edit an article according to policies. I don't mind if an admin doesn't approve the edit for recognition. But I will continue to try until the end of this conversation.—Patricia (Talk) 14:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Participants are reminded that the purpose of AfD discussions is to discuss the merits of whether an article should be kept or not. I recommend that participants — on the side of both keep and delete — discuss systematically and in detail which sources they believe do or do not confer notability. {{SAT}} may be beneficial for such an analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:43, 10 September 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! 01:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Ottawa municipal election[edit]

2026 Ottawa municipal election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After a quick Google search, I could find any information about the 2026 Ottawa municipal election except the date. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Happy to keep it up if someone can find more information, though. Significa liberdade (talk) 01:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment --WP:FUTURE. This is three years away, and only mentions the incumbent mayor is up for re-election. So far, it looks like an advance ad for "...Re-elect Mayor..." However, flipping backwards through the older Ottawa municipal elections, their Wikipedia articles were set up years in advance. Don't know how they weren't challenged, since I've seen "future" US election pages immediately put up for deletion. Do we have a standardized guideline for future elections? If not, we should. However, allowing this serves to be an advance promotion for whoever is running. — Maile (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I agree this article's creation is too early, I'm not sure what you are talking about. Most past Ottawa elections were created maybe one year in advance, and that's only because that is when candidates start discussing possibly running. Not too long ago candidates could file as early as January. Now, there is only one election article (2010) that was created years in advance (by me, guilty as charged!), but that was because there was already some polling.-- Earl Andrew - talk 00:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation in late 2025 or early 2026 once there starts to be actual stuff to say (and, even more importantly, reliably source) about it. At the federal and provincial/state levels, we have a tendency of allowing "upcoming future election" articles to exist fairly early in the cycle, in part because it's possible to track ongoing public opinion polling on the performance of the incumbent government, content about political issues or scandals that impact the government's evolving prospects of reelection, party leadership changes, and other things like that which build context — plus, in a minority government situation like Canada's in right now, the next election could literally be called at practically any time, so something has to be ready to go on the snap — but at the municipal level there's far less value in jumping the gun this early, because it'll be at least two years before there's any meaningful content to be added at all beyond "this is a thing that will (probably) happen, the end". Bearcat (talk) 13:50, 12 September 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! 00:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Nader[edit]

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

Article subject is an art collector who appears to fail notability. While some sources discuss the subject, only one appears to be independent and most are actually about the art gallery he runs (which I believe may actually satisfy notability for an article of its own) and only mention him in passing. (A possible solution might be to merge to an article about the art gallery if such an article were created.) Lenny Marks (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note There is also a strong suspicion of COI as the article was created and edited by a user with the same name as the article subject. --Lenny Marks (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect or Merge to an article about the gallery, which has a decent amount of coverage. This person's article is rather puffy as it stands, and I'm not seeing enough discussion of him outside of the context of the gallery. Oaktree b (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Some coverage in ArtNews about him and the gallery, but trivial, only about half a page. First one that comes up is a Forbes contributor piece, so not valid. Oaktree b (talk) 02:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b; As it stands, there is no article about the gallery as far as I'm aware. At least under the name cited in some of the sources. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm ok with a !delete if it ends up going there. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Visual arts, and Florida. Skynxnex (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:47, 10 September 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 as a copyright violation (close paraphrasing). Whpq (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CH (artist)[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:ARTIST. BEFORE does not bring up reliable sources. The artist appears to have invented a style "Postmodern-Narrationism" and an association (World Association of Artists) and named themselves "chairman". The article is not written in NPOV and it was created by a SPA. I think this article is purely WP:PROMO with ref bombing to non-relevant sources. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I am not finding anything to substantiate the notability of this artist. Eight of the "sources" are either EN Wikipedia or Chinese Wikipedia. Other sources include 5 citations to prove they are in "Who's Who". The article is written promotionally, and seems written in a way that seems like an autobiography. I wasn't able to verify the collection, maybe another editor has better luck. Other citations are primary sources, or don't mention him at all. This newspaper has either a review or a press release that mentions him and his invented genre Narrationism (I don't read nor speak Chinese)[49] it may be the only good source. Other citations seem like sponsored content or native advertising[50] or are user submitted content.[51]. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your detailed research. Regarding this sourceInternet Archive from China Yishubao (中国艺术报). The source's title is "Me and the Postmodern Narrative School" (translated from "我与后现代叙事派") and the author is listed as Chen Hao (陈豪), the subject of the article. Cunard (talk) 08:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, China, and California. Skynxnex (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article was tagged as a copyright violation of https://narrationism.com/, and I agree with the tagging as the article is a word-for-word copying of the website. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject in my searches for sources. Chen Hao (simplified Chinese: 陈豪; traditional Chinese: 陳豪) does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 08:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_September_10&oldid=1176113729"