Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 01	August 03 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Massey Landing, Delaware[edit]

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

This easternmost point of Long Neck is currently occupied by the sprawling Massey's Landing RV park on the north, a DNR boat ramp in the middle, and an even larger mobile home park on the south, but all of this is relatively recent: the RV park opened in 2015, the boat ramp around 2000. and the mobile homes sometime before 1980, but after the mid 1950s. Aerials from the latter date and before show almost nothing except a few structures which I cannot resolve well enough to make out what they are. At any rate, I can find no evidence of an earlier settlement except a passing reference to archaeological finds, and a bit of local history from a development's website says that it "has been known throughout Delaware’s history as one of the most isolated places in the state." It shows up a fair amount in local news, and the RV park shows up on every campground directory in the country, but I don't think the present place meets our standards, and there's no predecessor settlement to speak of. I can't even find out why it's called Massey's Landing. Mangoe (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was able to find a bit that Mangoe might not have seen, but really not much, and WP:BEFORE was comprehensive here. There are references to post-1947 activity at the location; this reference suggests the descendants of James M. Tunnell were the "first to dredge and fill marshy land that they owned near Massey's Landing". That would suggest that the location existed pre-1947 but that there wasn't much there until the point where Tunnell had descendants (he died in 1957). It would also suggest that "Massey's Landing", rather than "Massey Landing" is the name supported by RS. From there, there are references to the place in fictional books (centred around real locations) and various post-1970s environmental management reports. This report provides incidental coverage of archaeology and history, but nothing we could use to substantiate WP:Notability. If anything, the report concludes that there was no Paleo-Indian settlement (so notability would need to be derived from the 1950s onward). There are plenty of other passing references from the 1970s and 80s in various reports and directories but nothing close to significant coverage. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chrissy Gephardt[edit]

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

Seems like a case of WP:BLP1E. Also, notability is WP:NOT INHERITED. KidAd • SPEAK 22:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG; in addition to the WP:SUSTAINED coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources focused on her already in the article, I found e.g. Gay Daughter Joins Gephardt Campaign (ABC, 2003, includes in-depth, biographical coverage), Gephardt's daughter stumps for her 'gay-friendly' father / Only he can beat Bush, she tells Demos, (SFGate, 2003), 'Politics Should Be for Everyone' (Newsweek, 2004, "Chrissy, has been selected as one of the finalists to compete for the faux presidential post in the new television reality series, "American Candidate,""), Chrissy Gephardt "American President"? (ABC, 2006, "Chrissy Gephart will announce her candidacy tomorrow in Washington, DC to compete in the Showtime reality series American President."). She has received non-trivial coverage related to her participation in multiple events, not the mere fact of having a famous relative, and she did not remain low-profile, so her notability appears to be not WP:BLP1E and appears independently related to her and her accomplishments. Beccaynr (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC) More sources: (South Florida Sun-Sentinel, in-depth, WP:SECONDARY coverage, 2003), (Orlando Sentinel, 2003, same), (UPI, 2004), (The Advocate, 2004), (Los Angeles Times, 2004) (SFGate, 2007). Beccaynr (talk) 01:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't a case of inherited coverage. She's covered because she was outed as a lesbian and then used that fact for publicity. We have enough coverage to pass GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Pines, Delaware[edit]

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

Delaware Place Names calls it a "community" but aerials all show it to be an early suburban development just east of Laurel. No sign of notability as such. Mangoe (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subdivision fails GEOLAND and GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 02:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:53, 3 August 2021 (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. RL0919 (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Long[edit]

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

Sources don't show notability. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2021 (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 based on additional sources found. RL0919 (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Williams (comedian)[edit]

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

This draft is declined recently by Timtrent. I think the creator should follow the draft process. For me the subject is a non notable musicians that fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO GermanKity (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is someone's right to create in article space. It is how it used to be. Draft:Paul Williams (comedian) exists, so draftification is pointless. So please let us treat this article on its merits. Thank you for the ping. I shall remain neutral Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 18:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the exact same wording that was deleted. I wondered if it was a copy and paste move, but I think not. We must treat the new article on its own merits Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 18:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm the author of the article; I wasn't aware of the draft. I'd like to know what should I do to keep this from being deleted. HATSAREMACHINES 01:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi HATSAREMACHINES, the problem is not you or your page, at first glance it looks fine. The problem is the possible lack of detailed mentions of Paul Williams in reliable sources. Have a quick look at WP:NBIO. There are two ways forward, make arguments using Wikipedia's guidelines or find as much reliable detailed coverage of Paul Williams as you can. Don't try to be too clever and don't burn yourself out on any one thing. Have a look here to see how these things sometimes go. Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm the author of the other recent draft - we both wrote an article in the same week unbeknownst to the other! (I only found this one through scouring through Twitter today.) This clearly has extra info (as well as some of the same) but I think what we might need to do is reorientate the article(s) towards his comedy work since that is primary? In comedy he has been nominated for a major national award and has a leading role in a mainstream television programme that is on its second series; there will need to be a page at some point as there is increasing demand for info about him due to the international interest in Taskmaster. [I am based in UK and Hats in Brazil even though this is a NZ-based comedian.] It's just how we substantiate that, given that most articles will be entertainment review type sources? Thanks if you can help! CursoryBethany, 22:35, 27 July 2021
Delete Thanks for clearing that up CursoryBethany it all looks above board on the face of it. However, Paul Williams does not pass WP:ENT. WP:GNG is a little less clear, it could just be that my searching has been hampered by his common name. But with what I can find and what is on the page I would say he does not meet it. Dushan Jugum (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding some refs that may be useful [1][2][3] Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, what would you say is the number of sources for it to be considered 'significant coverage'? Because I'd argue that what I put should be enough. It's not like he'll have the same media coverage as a comedian based on the UK or the US. And I found some interviews but I was told that they're not reliable, even though I've seen other articles using interviews. In terms of WP:ENT, he's had multiple significant roles across those platforms, he was even nominated for awards. And Taskmaster may be his first major role on television, but it's an international programme, with multiple versions and a broad fan base. His name is even included on the show's article.

HATSAREMACHINES 10:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:3REFS "In order to show that a subject covered in many news reports is notable, three independent references from three different time periods, would in general successfully rebut notability challenges." That is just so far removed from what I think normally happens here. I will remove my vote as that is the best info we have right now, do not be surprised if it comes back when more a knowledgeable editor sets us right. Dushan Jugum (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution to the article, Dushan Jugum. CursoryBethany and I will be sure to look further for references in the meantime. We'll be waiting for another editor's opinion.

HATSAREMACHINES 22:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I enjoyed the breadth of the new references in the article! (thanks to the other writers). I have reorganised the text to focus on his main achievements as a comedian, such as his writing role in Taskmaster and its status as an international programme. Does it need anything more to avoid deletion?

CursoryBethany 23:28, 31 July 2021

Comment What do you think GermanKity, do you still want to delete it? Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need more comments from other reviewers. GermanKity (talk) 08:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep my feeling is he meets WP:ENT now, with performances at Edinburgh and Melbourne and around New Zealand for comedy. On TV with Taskmasker and put out music. I did find some more sources as well with Southland Times, Radio NZ, The Spinoff, NZ OnScreen, two Stuff articles and The New Zealand Herald. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NZFC (talk • contribs) 05:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am changing my vote to keep after all the references that have been found. I think he passes general notability. Dushan Jugum (talk) 06:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:ENT, with two series of Taskmaster NZ. Paora (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2021 (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. Also eligible for G5 deletion, first block in the sockfarm at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orlaw66 was 19 July. MER-C 18:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Boswell (real estate agent)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Sources provided are press release types or articles where he is mentioned but not discussed. Claim to notability seems to be that he sold the most expensive house in Dubai but I don't believe that, in itself, is sufficient to meet WP:BIO. ... discospinster _talk 19:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Discospinster You do not that Chris Boswell sold the highest priced residential home?. Where is your proof he didn't? Please provide with a counter point. How can Arabian Business, Gulf News, The National and Khaleej Times the most reputable Journalists in Dubai all be wrong? Information on the highest sale prices are pulled from the Dubai Land Department database and REIDIN.com logged by the agent that sold the property. I should know I worked in the Industry for 17 years. O66 (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I don't believe that he sold the home. I said I believe that it's not sufficient to meet notability criteria. ... discospinster _talk 20:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"notability seems to be that he sold the most expensive house in Dubai but I don't believe that".... I'll be adding more citation links in 24 hours to support this. I am baffled as why many of the "editors" on here clearly do not take the time to read the articles included. O66 (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Discospinster Furthermore, being asked to be interviewed because of your in depth knowlege on the Dubai real estate market or be the main subject of an interview/bio piece in the UAE due to your achievements and contribution to the market surely qualifies for notability. I strongly appeal the decision to delete and respectfully request another Editor to kindly take the time to review each article please. O66 (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not convinced selling a US$50m property in Dubai is a claim of notability, there's probably dozens of houses sold in London alone for more than that. Nor do I see being involved in the sale of US$1.16 Billion's worth of property in total as a claim for notability. (To put all this into perspective, Mukesh Ambani's home in Mumbai is valued at over $1 billion) --John B123 (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suprised at this response considering the Freehold market is only 20 years old in Dubai with palm island homes less than 13 years old. Mukesh Ambani's home price is completley irrelevant and suprised at this example. Why has a Dubai property not sold for more than US$50m in six years? O66 (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, No home in history has ever sold for over a Billion USD. This is a terrible example. You make it sound as if selling over a Billion Dollars worth of real estate is an easy task. O66 (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it's easy, just that it's not notable. --John B123 (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--John B123 My issue is that other real estate agents (US) have been included with career sales equal to or under with similar press coverage. Why my subject is nominated for deletion is confusing. Your comment regarding "Dozens of London homes selling for that amount" is completely uncorrelated. The Dubai freehold market is 19 years old! London is a market that is hundreds of years old. Selling a home of that value unsurpassed for over six years in the UAE is worthy of press in the domestic media and I'm disappointed editors are not reviewing or re-searching the subject matter in more depth before proposed deletion. O66 (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My comment about London prices is entirely relevant in that on a world scale, a US$50m house is not exceptional. Even if it were the most expensive house in the world, it still wouldn't make him notable. He is obviously good at his job, but so are thousands of other people. --John B123 (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to add, in your reply to discospinster above, you asked for another editor to review notability. I've done that and can't see enough notability to warrant an article. --John B123 (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The price of the house is not relevant. As John B123 above, I can not see notability here. --Bduke (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This fellow doesn't shave. As per above, price is not a factor of notability, it is reliable, secondary sources. Some of those references (Arabian Business) require registration. Not enough references about the fellow. As per nom and John B123. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Under WP:BEFORE it is stated:

C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted

2. If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.

The article was created on 2 August 2021‎ and proposed for deletion on the same day, so I do not believe this procedure was followed. Adding {{notability}} would have been more appropriate at this stage. Thus, I think the correct WP:AFD procedure under WP:BEFORE should be followed before a deletion process is considered again. Assuming the checking editor agrees, I think Keep with a {{notability}} notice would be more appropriate for the moment as the article develops. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It's pointless giving an article time to develop if it doesn't have a chance of meeting the notability guidelines no matter how the article is developed. To tag now and let the creator or other editors spend time developing the article and then it gets deleted at a later date seems a cruel waste of time. --John B123 (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has been improved with a couple of additional sources added since the three deletion votes above. Agreed with Jonathan above that this article ought to be given more time to develop. NemesisAT (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to source several archived articles (wayback) kindly request time to locate them. O66 (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete per nom nearlyevil 665 17:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More references have been added, Article has improved. Agree with NemesisAT and Jpbowen that this article needs additional time to develop. Dmnclefebvre (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC) — Dmnclefebvre (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- CU-confirmed sock of Orlaw66, both part of a substantial UPE farm, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orlaw66. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2021 (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 Krista & Becca Ritchie. Whether to merge content from the history is up to editors. Sandstein 07:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wynter Chelsea[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NBOOK. A WP:BEFORE revealed a single review from a blog. Book was self-published through Outskirts Press. Isabelle ^🔔 19:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Isabelle ^🔔 19:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything to suggest that this book or the overall series meets NBOOK. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK, have been unable to find any reviews of this book. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the author's page, although her notability may also be doubtful. pburka (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2021 (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 23:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert "Bob" Martino[edit]

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

Fail of WP:GNG. nearlyevil 665 19:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 19:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 19:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This could be draftified, as it meets the requirements (COI product that needs to be sent through AFC). --- Possibly ☎ 19:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I felt the same, but a Wikipedia:BEFORE didn't show me any chances of this passing AfC. But I don't feel too strongly on this, feel free to draftify if you feel strongly about it. nearlyevil 665 19:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nearlyevil665: I think you;re probably right. We need the precedent of a deletion discussion, in case this crops up in future. --- Possibly ☎ 19:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the more I tried to track down sources, the more obvious it became that everything about this person is local news and not of interest to a global encyclopedia. --- Possibly ☎ 19:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetuum Music[edit]

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

Non-notable label, fail of WP:GNG. nearlyevil 665 18:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 18:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - mentioned in passing here and here but nothing close to WP:CORPDEPTH. Looks like it fails WP:NCORP. Not seeing how it would pass WP:NMUSIC either as it's not one of the more important indie labels. Doesn't look like it even meets GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, small output and nowhere near notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geschichte (talk • contribs) 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete - It is possible that they have a separate name in the Cyrillic alphabet, and if so it may appear in more visible sources, but (to the best of my ability) I cannot find such a name on their otherwise Russian website [4]. Under the name we see here, the company has received no coverage in its own right as required for WP:CORPDEPTH, and they are only ever listed briefly in articles that are actually about their musicians. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sources not shown for notability under WP:GNG, and not a legally recognized place that would be presumed notable per WP:GEOLAND. RL0919 (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Five Points, Delaware[edit]

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

AN intersection at the north end of Belltown, whose name has more recently been co-opted by a development. Delaware Place Names calls it a locality and as best I can tell, nobody disagrees. Mangoe (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm turning up a location in Philly, passing mentions to Five Points as an intersection, and a housing development named "Villages of Five Points" that doesn't seem to be notable. This is not a notable location. Hog Farm _Talk 22:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a Property Owners Association indicating an actual community. More coverage: [5] [6] [7] [8]. Alternatively you could merge with Belltown, Delaware, since it is nearby but seems to be a separate community.

A POA just means there are covenants, and in any case it has nothing to do with any historic community, not that there ever was one. If you want an article on this subdivision as a planned community, write an article on that, but don't co-opt this one. Mangoe (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the issue: there isn't much to co-opt, as it is a stub, and Five Points is the name of the development. Delaware is unusual in that, unlike in Pennsylvania or New Jersey, unincorporated land is not part of a township. There may thus be more of a need for articles on subdivisions in Delaware because the information cannot be redirected to a township (or borough)'s article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 11:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing more than a named intersection that's often used as a landmark. There's no distinct legally-recognized community here, and I'm not seeing GNG-level coverage of either the intersection or the namesake subdivision as required by WP:GEOLAND. –dlthewave ☎ 22:32, 7 August 2021 (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 Hot Rod (magazine)#Video games. RL0919 (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Rod: American Street Drag[edit]

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

Unsourced advertisement and game guide. Searches found nothing other than abandonware site downloads and cheat code lists. Reads like the back of a game box, which is probably where the big promotional paragraph actually comes from; I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't.

Article details a Windows 95 game where you take a classic car and ruin it so it goes fast. That's it. The game itself is basically an advertisement for Hot Rod magazine, but that's beside the point. AdoTang (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hot Rod (magazine)#Video games - I'm not finding any real coverage of the game, outside of some guides and sale pages. The "IGN Review" linked to in the article is not, in fact, an actual review from the IGN staff, but a "reader review", and thus not an actual reliable source. I could not find any actual legit reviews from reliable sources anywhere, and Metacritic also lists zero review that I could follow up on. It does not appear that this game passes the WP:GNG, and as there is no sourced content in this article, there is nothing to preserve or merge. But, as it is already mentioned in the appropriate section for the magazine that the game was made for, redirecting there seems like a reasonable decision. Rorshacma (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hot Rod (magazine)#Video games. MobyGames can confirm it exists, but it doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:31, 3 August 2021 (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. Patents are not independent secondary sources, so do not contribute to showing notability, and other sources appear to be lacking. RL0919 (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taniguchian telescope[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG: No significant coverage besides the patent. No indication that such a telescope was ever built or that it was discussed in scientific or technical literature. Count Count (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems no evidence of significance at all. The reference in Japanese does not seem to be anything to do with telescopes, but features Taniguchi, who says he wants to implement his telescope. And note also that "Taniguchian" is likely to be a self-invented faux-adjective; needs considerable evidence to show this as an English usage. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There isn't evidence of significance of the telescope, and there aren't enough sources on this in English, and it doesn't appears to be notable. It also has been nominated for deletion on Japanese Wikipedia. Cheers. Tahaaleem ^Talk 19:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely not notable. (To anticipate a potential objection, I will mention the following. The creator of the article, who has dedicated a significant amount of effort to trying to get articles on this topic established on several Wikipedias, objected to the deletion on German Wikipedia on the grounds that the telescope is a Japanese invention, and is therefore unlikely to show up in German-language searches. I have therefore searched for タニグチ式望遠鏡, which the creator of the articles gives as the Japanese name of the telescope. I found hits on Japanese Wikipedia, Wikimedia commons, several Wikipedia mirrors, Twitter, and several other Japanese web sites which were clearly similar repositories for user-submitted content, and also none of which had more than brief mentions of the telescope. It is perfectly clear that the attempt to explain away lack of sources found in searches as being because all information about it is in Japanese is totally spurious. There is no substantial coverage of it in reliable sources anywhere, in Japanese or any other language.) JBW (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero notability whatsoever of telescope and inventor, therefore already deleted on dewiki and frwiki. --Müllt-Renner (talk) 05:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC) ....and ãlso deleted on jawiki. --Müllt-Renner (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP USPTO.report is a Significant coverage described in Wikipedia:Notability. Therefore, this invention described in the document is notable. --Süd-Russisches (talk) 07:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how the fact that Taniguchi-san filed a patent for his idea, could anyhow match the criteria under WP:GNG. -- Müllt-Renner (talk) 08:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(to Müllt-Renner) In ja:タニグチ式望遠鏡 it is wriiten that 「2015年特許庁に特許申請、2016年に特許取得後、国際出願を経て、2019年4月米国特許として認められる。」（Patent application to the Japan Patent Office in 2015, Japanese Patent in 2016, through international application, US patent at April 2019）

(to JSW) You write spurious, what is the content ? (Please show some of them.)--Süd-Russisches (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(to JSW) I feel you are misunderstanding my message I wrote at 19:13, 2. Aug. 2021 (CEST) in de:Benutzer Diskussion:Karsten11. I think that it should be better to discuss it in de:Benutzer Diskussion:Karsten11 than here.--Süd-Russisches (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That guy ain't Newton, that's for sure. Maybe there are Japanese sources that remain undetectable (if there are, they would be pretty definitely undetectable to me), but absent such, there is insufficient coverage to show notability. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. --84.115.228.224 (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not all telescope inventors are as famous as Newton.--Süd-Russisches (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2021 (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. Sandstein 07:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

World Pantheist Movement[edit]

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

I recently found a previous AfD discussion held seventeen years ago. I relisted it, but after that I just closed it as No Consensus to delete. The question is still valid; this article still seems to be lacking in reliable sources. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - I can't find much evidence either, even now 17 years later. Surprised it stuck around this long. There is apparently a passing mention in an Oxford Press book. There was some press in 1999, but it turns out to have been written by Harrison (and another) - apparently he had a book out. Google Scholar has passing mentions and pieces by Harrison. Not sure what our notability guideline on religious organisations is; but I'd first assume that, like our organisations guideline, it's basically WP:GNG, and I'm not seeing anything that passes that - David Gerard (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would very strongly disagree with the arguments put forward. The World Pantheist Movement is the largest and, besides the Universal Pantheist Society, the only international organization devoted to pantheism. In addition, there must have been only a one-time significance (see: Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary). I will adapt the article to the standards of Wikipedia. - Lothaeus (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You haven't really addressed the lack of RSes per WP:ORG - every source in the article at present except one is primary-sourced or user-generated content from the primary source - but if you can do that, then that would be an argument - David Gerard (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, why were the Universal Pantheist Society or The Paradise Project not proposed for deletion, although your argument of low relevance is also applicable there (with even less sources as in the case of the UPS or no media coverage for years as with the TPP)? - Lothaeus (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The answer is: this is a discussion about this article, not those articles; if you have problems with those articles existing, then you should consider a discussion deletion on those articles. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a winning excuse in a deletion discussion; other bad articles existing is not a reason to keep this bad article, especially when you're still not addressing the particular issues raised with this bad article - David Gerard (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is in this case because they are similar organizations which are important to consider in order to the relevance of this article. Also, I don't understand deleting an article just because it's "bad", regardless of relevance. And by the way, I count four external sources: Encyclopaedia of Religion and Nature, Candid, SETI@Home and World Religions & Spirituality Project. I believe that personal reasons could play a role here, especially since this is an issue from the religious spectrum. - Lothaeus (talk) 06:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment notability on the four external sources mentioned

Encyclopaedia of Religion and Nature carries weight, i'll give you that, but we'd need a few more sources like that to truly call the subject of this article notable.

Candid is considered a primary source, because the text in Candid entries is generated by the organizations themselves.

SETI@Home doesn't contribute to notability, in this case, because it looks to be (a) a primary source just like Candid and (b) does not got in-depth about the source.

While the World Religions & Spirituality Project is a secondary source, it isn't considered reliable enough on Wikipedia to go beyond routine or unreliable coverage. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would want to make another argument: Pantheism is overall underrepresented in most of the societies worldwide. From my own experience, I can say that many people identify with pantheistic ideas, but have never heard neither of the conceptualization nor the specific term. If we delete this article of its largest organization, then this philosophical worldview would be even less discoverable on the Internet and pantheism would continue to lose relevance, in my opinion. The historical and current relevance is evident from the related article Pantheism - Lothaeus (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This would be a good argument for removing the present article, and redirecting it to Pantheism - David Gerard (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Somehow I doubt your neutrality towards pantheism, David Gerard, as the following discussion points out quite well: Talk:Carl_Sagan/pantheism. - Lothaeus (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Addition - And look who made it finally on the list (User_talk:David_Gerard/archive_1#List_of_Pantheists). By the way, Carl Sagan was already 7 years dead at the time of the previous cited discussion about him and therefore could not further externalize his views. - Lothaeus (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lothaeus: hi there! Please confine your arguments to the guidelines that can be found at WP:GNG and WP:NORG. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: I refer to the General notability guideline with Significant coverage in Reliable sources, Independent of the subject and therefore it is Presumed that this subject merits an own article. Here are the books I have found that contain content about the World Pantheist Movement:

1. “Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature”, Bron Taylor, 2008; weblink: [9]
2. “Pantheisticon: A Modern English Translation”, John Toland, 2014; weblink: [10]
3. “Religious Naturalism Today: The Rebirth of a Forgotten”, Jerome A. Stone, 2008 (page 10); weblink: [11]
4. “Natural History of Cognition: Mind over Matter”, Chuck Baxter, 2020; weblink: [12]
5. “The Lonely Mind of God: An Acosmist Answers the Primordial Existential Question by Solving the Omniscience Riddle”, Sherman O'Brien, 2021; weblink: [13]
6. “Cumulative List of Organizations Described in Section 170 (c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954”, United States. Internal Revenue Service, 2004 (page 3444); weblink: [14]
7. “Dark Green Religion Nature Spirituality and the Planetary Future”, Bron Raymond Taylor, 2010 (page 159); weblink: [15]
8. “Pandeism: An Anthology of the Creative Mind. An Exploration of the Creativity of the Human Mind”, Knujon Mapson, Amy Perry, 2019; weblink: [16]
9. “Saved by Philosophy – A Novel About Philosophy, And the Amor Dei Intellectualis”, Steven H. Propp, 2007; weblink: [17]
10. “Expanding Humanitys Vision Of God”, Robert Herrmann, 2009 (page 251); weblink: [18]
11. “Godless Paganism: Voices of Non-Theistic Pagans”, John Halstead, 2016 (page 37); weblink: [19]
12. “The Case Against Theism. Why the Evidence Disproves God’s Existence”, Raphael Lataster, 2018; weblink: [20]
13. “Science & Religion: A Handbook for Interpersonal Dialogue, Discussion and Debate”, John Ross Jr., 2016; weblink: [21]
14. “Theory of Knowledge for the IB Diploma”, Richard van de Lagemaat, 2014 (page 535); weblink: [22]
15. “Alternative Concepts of God. Essays on the Metaphysics of the Divine”, Andrei Buckareff, Yujin Nagasawa (editors), 2015 (page 274); weblink: [23]
16. “Spirited. Taking Paganism Beyond the Circle”, Gede Parma, 2012 (page 168); weblink: [24]
17. “The True American Manifesto”, Richard W. Fredericks, 2010 (page 75); weblink: [25]
18. “The Routledge Handbook of Religious Naturalism”, Donald A. Crosby, ‎Jerome A. Stone, 2018; weblink: [26]
19. “A Companion to Atheism and Philosophy”, Graham Oppy, 2019 (page 156); weblink: [27]
20. “Pandeism: An Anthology”, Knujon Mapson, 2017; weblink: [28]
21. “Goethe's 'Exposure Of Newton's Theory': A Polemic On Newton's Theory Of Light And Colour”, Michael John Duck, Michael Petry, 2016 (page xxxix); [29]
22. “Margaret Atwood: A Reference Guide”, 1988-2005”, Shannon Hengen, ‎Ashley Thomson, 2007 (page 309); weblink: [30]
23. “Encyclopedia of American Religions”, J. Gordon Melton, ‎Gale Group, 2003 (page 675); weblink: [31]
24. “Schopenhauer's Philosophy of Religion. The Death of God and the Oriental Renaissance”, Christopher Ryan, 2010 (page 150); weblink: [32]
25. “The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief”, Richard Dawkins, 2007 (page 14); weblink: [33]

- Lothaeus (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to got through all of these, but all of the ones that I checked contained mostly a passing mention. Not enough to contribute towards WP:GNG. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will help you. Please check: 3., 4., 7., 8. (continues but not available on Google Books), 10., 16. (same as with 8.), 18., 21. (good reference for the symbol of the WPM), 23. (short but very good source), 25. (citation only but Richard Dawkins is a worldwide known author). - Lothaeus (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources provided in the article and in the comments above are some combination of superficial, non-independent, and dubiously reliable. Passing mentions in the vein of "Paul Harrison, founder of the World Pantheist Movement, wrote that..." are not significant coverage of the World Pantheist Movement as an organization. Nor are directory entries and other such items that testify to the group's existence but little more. XOR'easter (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notice - To the administrator concerned – please also read the discussion on User_talk:David_Gerard#Edit_shown_in_the_revision_history_of_the_article_World_Pantheist_Movement before considering the deletion of this article. Thank you. - Lothaeus (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not the administrator who will close this discussion, or an administrator of any sort for that matter, but I don't see how anything there matters to the question at hand. XOR'easter (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 09:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jeopardy! contestants[edit]

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

~~WP:LISTCRUFT~~ Article with indiscriminate list of some but not all contestants on Jeopardy!. Descriptions contain trivia such as "Won $xx,xxx before being defeated", "Biggest-winning contestant under 30", etc. Any contestants who meet WP:N on their own have an individual article and are tagged with Category:Jeopardy! contestants. Indiscriminate list is one factor but not sole factor for proposed deletion.

No threshold, rules, scope or standard applied as to who is/is not included. Content is based upon individual editors' ideas. No clear reason as to who is/is not "notable" enough to be featured.

There's no debate that there are sources for some of the individual episodes on which contestants appeared (although there are several unsourced entries), but there are no sources about the topic of Jeopardy! contestants treated as a whole. This idea is also wrapped up in that a list of contestants is not viable under the WP:BLP1E rules. Anyone who meets WP:BLP for inclusion can be tagged with Category:Jeopardy! contestants.

Prior AFD was closed after nominator withdrew. Keep comments in prior AFD are essentially "it's a solution to having individual contestant pages", yet those pages would certainly not exist due to WP:BLP1E anyway. AldezD (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. AldezD (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AldezD (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. AldezD (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd say delete based on the current page, but is there any commonality in the current entries on the page that could be used as the selection criteria? Maybe one or more pages such as "public figures," "contestants who won over $X00k," or "contestants with an X-game winning streak?" The current page seems to be a mixture of random trivia, so it definitely needs to be changed regardless of the outcome. TTN (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "No threshold, rules, scope or standard." I've asked the complainant to propose some, but he refuses to do it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:LISTCRUFT is neither policy nor guideline; it's just a crude insult per WP:CRUFTCRUFT. The nomination seems to prefer the equivalent category but, per guideline WP:CLN, the existence of the category demonstrates that the list is valid too. And it's easy to find independent evidence of notability too such as USA Today and so it passes guideline WP:LISTN. Applicable policies therefore include WP:ATD; WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Revised nomination to strike "Listcruft". AldezD (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ~~I've concluded that this is a bad-faith nomination. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)~~ No, more like a "bad reasoning" nomination. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any list article needs WP:LISTCRITERIA, and these should ideally be the starting point from which the list is constructed, not something we add to a pre-existing list. If we include every contestant, we end up with an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list that is way too broad per WP:SALAT. I don't think it would be appropriate to have the threshold for inclusion be "subject is WP:Notable, i.e. has a stand-alone Wikipedia article", because some notable Jeopardy! contestants are not notable for being Jeopardy! contestants but for completely different reasons (John McCain is an obvious example).
We have to ask ourselves what WP:LISTPURPOSE this is meant to serve. If it's meant to be informational, we need to come up with inclusion (and perhaps also exclusion) criteria that are unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. If it's meant to be purely navigational, the solution would be to remove all the prose and simply have a list of links (though I frankly don't see the point in retaining such a list). TompaDompa (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- At the very least, the title is misleading. Taken literally, it would imply every contestant in the history of the program, which run into many thousands. A better title would be something like "winningest Jeopardy contestants", or maybe "Jeopardy contestants who qualified for the Tournament of Champions", which would be effectively the same list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment—@Baseball Bugs: Tournament of Champions article with list of contesants was AFD'd and closed as redirect to List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events#Tournament of Champions in 2020. AldezD (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Keeping it all to just one list could be an improvement. The list article under discussion here was created in 2010, by a user who last edited a year ago. It could be that some overlap now exists, which could be remedied by some skillful merging. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there is sourced info for this type of list as their appearances would be discussed, even if not to the extent that GNG would support standalone articles. Whether it should be limited to a certain number of appearances, dollars won or other issues to make it more navigable can be solved editorially. Star Mississippi 22:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TNT This is not a bad-faith nomination and it's poor form to accuse that. This article is in poor state and should not be just a bunch of mini-biographies of otherwise non-notable players. I think the concept of this list is welcome, but many, many players have performed excellently in regular play and tournaments, reached some sort of placement toward a superlative, or otherwise distinguished themselves, so the list needs to be reworked to have better inclusion criteria. Jerry Frankel and Eric Newhouse, for example, seem to have been relatively routine winners and don't fit in here, and Richard Cordray is notable for things outside Jeopardy. Reywas92^Talk 01:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons listed by User:Andrew Davidson and Star Mississippi above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of greatest Jeopardy! champions. An earlier format of this article was previously deleted per consensus in a bundle AFD in 2006. AldezD (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any article which lists the top winners in terms of money and/or consecutive games won? By the way, the presumably official website has a list of the top 10 in each of several categories:[34] Amodio would currently fit in the 10th row. Presumably they're taking your suggestion and not updating it until his run ends. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment—Other than using the link as a reference, adding direct content from [35] here would fall under WP:COPYVIO. The vast majority of game show articles do not include list of top X winners. Many have already been deleted through AFD:
    - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biggest wins and losses on Wheel of Fortune — Content originally merged to main article then later removed.
    - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? top prize winners — U.S. version article no longer lists all top prize winners.
    - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deal or No Deal (UK game show) records (2nd nomination)

AldezD (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At least one of which died by your own hand. Presumably you're trying to deal this one a death blow for the same reason. So much for WP:WHAAOE. If I go looking for info, and Wikipedia doesn't have it, then Wikipedia has failed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter who nominated them. They were deleted by community consensus for the reasons and guidelines linked in the discussions. This article is a similar enough situation as those to mention here. AldezD (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*If this list gets retained, and hence your "reasons" invalidated, maybe the one (or ones) you killed earlier should also be reinstated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The complainant thinks he owns this page too. If he didn't want his previous deletion efforts commented on, he shouldn't have brought them up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it's fairly safe to say that a 2006 and 2007 consensus are not necessarily indicative of current consensus. 2018 could be, but that's not a given either. Star Mississippi 13:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasoning of User:Andrew Davidson and User:Star Mississippi above. Staib (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the current champion has won 13 straight games and over 400,000 bucks.[36] He's now tied for 6th place for consecutive wins, and is in 5th place for regular (non-tournament) game show winnings; and is only a couple hundred dollars behind 4th place, so with consolation prizes he'll move into 4th on Monday even if he loses (unless consolation prizes don't count). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Baseball Bugs: The current champion is unrelated to this AFD discussion. If you feel he meets WP:GNG and addresses issues in WP:BLP1E, create an article. AldezD (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why bother? According to you, he's a nobody, and I expect you would immediately move to delete the article, to add another notch to your deletionist belt. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Baseball Bugs: You are posting things in this discussion unrelated to the AFD topic that question your WP:COMPETENTcy as an editor. This deletion discussion is of the list of contestants as a whole. The current champion is unrelated to this AFD discussion. If you feel he meets WP:GNG and addresses issues in WP:BLP1E, create an article. AldezD (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - The fact you keep bringing up irrelevancies could speak to your own competence. As does your edit-warring on another article today. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Seriously. What are you talking about? You're adding irrelevant information to a deletion discussion and veering off topic of whether the List of Jeopardy! contestants article should be deleted or kept. I'm responding that the current champion is not relevant to this discussion, and then you say I'm bringing up irrelevancies. This is not the purpose of an AFD, nor is it relevant to this AFD subject, which is the List of Jeopardy! contestants article. Please stay on-topic. AldezD (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        You yourself brought up a couple of your past deletionist conquests. Those are likewise off-topic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with comment: As a general rule, I would suggest that any person who has an individual article be included in any criteria for this list. Those who would otherwise meet WP:GNG (at least two verifiable, independent sources for said contestant) but whose sole fame is due to Jeopardy! (and thus would not have enough info to justify an article of their own) would be candidates to be listed as they are now. That would, necessarily, increase the amount of eligible entries, given how much media coverage Jeopardy! contestants get—and how inconsistent that coverage can be—but it is a firm criteria, and a preferable alternative to destruction of the page (which would in turn break a whole lot of links and redirects to contestants who do not have full articles of their own yet and thus cause massive disruption). J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2021 (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 Tally Hall#Discography. RL0919 (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly Incomplete Demos[edit]

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

Article's only source is hiddeninthesand.com, which, sorry Coz, is not a reliable source, and a google search shows no reliable sources that would be indicative of notability. Notability is not inherited, so just because it's by Tally Hall, a notable band with notable albums, doesn't make it notable. (nomination made with twinkle) casualdejekyll (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and maybe redirect to Tally Hall because it seems there aren't any real sources after looking. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tally Hall#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 02:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tally Hall#Discography. No proper sources available to warrant its own article. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 11:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of EA Play games[edit]

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

Generally, WP:NOTCATALOG. See for example past such list AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Steam games (2nd nomination). While we do list games by hardware platform, we have avoided games by storefront since this is basically just a storefront catalog. Masem (t) 15:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Masem (t) 15:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I originally created this article as the list was inside the EA Play article and was long enough to warrant its own article. I also moved it into its own article as I had seen this similar list: List of Apple Arcade games. The k nine 2 (talk) 04:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 08:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We don't need to reproduce advertising for EA. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A. J. Walkley[edit]

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

Mostly self-published author with mostly 404 references. Qwirkle (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed she's probably a delete but there's something weird going on here that needs fixing anyway. The WP link to Adult Books has been hijacked by a redirect page that takes it to Los Angeles (X album), which is completely unrelated. I don't know how to fix this, anyone able to advise? Elemimele (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Spam on top of spam, by the look of it. Qwirkle (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even close to being a notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kaleem Ahmad Khursheed[edit]

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

I'm not sure if this person is explicitly notable or even a borderline. I recently approved the AfC draft thinking that I might come up with more information in native language, but sadly, no help avail. That said, there also seem few editors interested in this, and this can be a UPE case as well. Lateley, I came through Draft:Pir Syed Mohmmad Kaleem Ahmad Khursheed, and it seems the related editors have badly tried to game the system ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 17:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 17:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pinging Deb who rejected Draft:Syed Kaleem Ahmad Khursheed Law Associates. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 17:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All I can say is that the person who created the article is currently blocked for disruptive editing (repeatedly submitting the same drafts) and I believe there is an undeclared conflict of interest. I feel unqualified to judge whether this particular individual is notable in terms of the legal profession. Deb (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [I add References to this article] --SidraRanaAdv 15:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — He's senior Supreme Court lawyer and ex Chief of two of notable Bar associations of Pakistan (Lahore High Court Bar Association and Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm unsure why User:TheAafi is constantly doing disruptive edits by removing references added for info verification again and again. To avoid edit warring I refrained myself from reverting his edits, seems like he has a some sort of conflict of interest here with kaleem Ahmad Khursheed. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Abdulhaseebatd, "You have miserably misunderstood the WP:COI." Nonetheless, the references that were removed had passing mentions (and few were containing merely one fact which was already referenced in the article and WP:CITEKILL is definitely not helpful). You perhaps need to check WP:SIGCOV. Anyway, how does being a president of a Bar Association help someone pass WP:JUDGE or any other subjective criteria? Here SidraRanaAdv has conflict of interest (she is connected with the subject) and no one else. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 10:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  The way you have misrepresented the diff above is worst. The article history is right there to elaborate, how the references were removed. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 10:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to ask KylieTastic, Theroadislong and Mccapra to have a look at the article and tell me if I am mistaken somewhere. Thanks. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 10:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also Curb Safe Charmer and Yitzilitt who declined the "duplicate draft" of the article, Draft:Pir Syed Mohmmad Kaleem Ahmad Khursheed. I'd like to have your ideas as well. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 10:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I specifically rejected that draft due to it having (at the time) both unsourced statements which needed citations per WP:BLP, and very subjective statements such as calling him “ the most prominent Naqshbandi Dargah (Shrine) in Asia”—I don’t remember doing any significant research beyond that point (though the sources it did cite did look legit, if I’m remembering correctly). Yitz (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 10:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment well I’d say that a lawyer who argues before a Supreme Court would need to be a good GNG pass as I don’t see what other basis they’d pass on. This subject doesn’t look like a strong GNG pass to me. On the other hand I see we already have bios for other Presidents of the SC Bar Association in Pakistan, thought most of them do seem to be GNG passes. I’ll look again later when I have more time. Mccapra (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I skipped over this in AfC as I wasn't sure enough but thought it failed WP:GNG, I was also one of the six decliners of Draft:Syed Kaleem Ahmad Khursheed Law Associates. This definitely has the smell of COI/UPE/promotion. On reconsideration here not being able to read ref 2 & 3 does not matter as they are used to source nothing to aid notability. The remaining sources fail to show WP:GNG. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, no independent coverage available. We need in-depth coverage to qualify for GNG which the subject misses. Hypogaearoots (talk) 07:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see any evidence that this individual meets WP:BASIC, or is within one of the additional criteria mentioned at WP:BIO. ninety:one 16:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I haven’t found anything that would make this a GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — He's is member of Pakistan bar councel
Keep — He is a writer of many books which are not published online forums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SidraRanaAdv (talk • contribs) — Note to closing admin: SidraRanaAdv (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
Comment I'm generally opposed to the idea of "fruit of the poison tree" = deletion, and this particular article is a good example. The subject was president of the bar association of the apex court of a country of 200+ million people. Around 3,000 of what would be the country's most prominent, established (elite) lawyers voted in the election he won. It's hard to envisage this person is not notable, has not argued in significant cases etc. Sourcing in the article is weak, moreover, there are only smatterings of mentions in English (although there are a lot more smatterings under the name "Pir Kaleem Khurshid"), hence sitting on the fence for the moment. I've not searched in Urdu as I'm not certain of the spelling of his name for the latter version. I think it's important to give this AfD a little more time, in order to do further searching in Urdu, as I expect there would be far more offline coverage here (especially Urdu language newspapers). Pinging Ngrewal1 for comment. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not possible to confirm, but a search for "Syed Muhammad Kalim Ahmed Khursheed" gives hits in the Biographical Encyclopedia of Pakistan, which possibly means satisfying c.3 of of WP:ANYBIO, but Google books does not reveal enough to verify if it is an individual entry. Goldsztajn (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and Basic Bio notability.– ItsSkV08 (talk) 07:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Flying Dutchman (2000 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, all but one of the sources in the article are referencing a comprehensive film guide, which does not establish notability per WP:NFSOURCES, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 14:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added some more sources and don’t see a problem. One substantial reliable source ( Film Review) would be enough, but others independent of the subject add to notability. Not the Hannibal Pictures site, as that is the distributor. Moonraker (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- One review is not enough per WP:NFO. Every other source is a database/comprehensive film guide entry which does not indicate notability per WP:NFSOURCES. BOVINEBOY2008 10:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I found a second review and a local news source. The coverage here is fairly light as a whole, hence the weak keep. I figure that releasing the same day as 9/11 probably didn't help this B movie gain coverage any. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Moonraker and ReaderofthePack's rationale. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as since the nomination the article has been improved using coverage such as reviews in multiple reliable sources so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2021 (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. All "keep" opinions are by accounts with very few edits, and most "delete" opinions are by experienced Wikipedians, which in and of itself says something. While there is disagreement about whether the sources are sufficient, given the circumstances outlined in the nomination I'm placing determining weight on the opinions by experienced contributors. Sandstein 07:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BreakTudo Awards[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

This article is one of the worst cases of use of Wikipedia as means for promotion we have on en.WP. Additionally, it also an ugly case of undisclosed paid contribution and advocacy. All this, because this article doesn't pass WP:GNG or any other notability criteria, so they have to resort to other means to keep it here. There's no in-depth coverage, independent or reliable sources on the article. Only self-published, promotional sources and obscures non-reliable outlets and websites. The first time this article went through a AfD it was plagued by WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT puppetry. Almost all the editors who voted "keep" were new accounts with few edits or proven socks whose accounts were later blocked and locked. When BreakTudo (the company that promotes this event) was nominated for an AfD the same happened. Several socks showed up trying to "save" the article. All the "keep" votes came from socks. On the pt.WP, where this article was first created, it was deleted, and later several proven socks tried to recreate it over and over. So, to all participating on this AfD and to the sysop assessing the consensus, I ask to take all this into consideration. Additionally, don't be surprise if socks and meats show up on this AfD too. SirEd ^Dimmi!!! 13:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. SirEd ^Dimmi!!! 13:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. SirEd ^Dimmi!!! 13:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This goes beyond being an non-notable awards. This is a serious case of spam within Wikipedia, which I also believe should receive greater attention from administrators due to the movement it generates in its versions in other languages. J ^talk 13:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Strong keep, Wikipedia doesn't delete articles because they contain subject matter that somebody doesn't like. I analyzed the article and the notoriety of the topic is evidenced, being Brazilian the prize has articles on several and important websites (La Verdad,CNN, Complex, Naver, Sohu, CNBC, Bagikan Berita, Telegrafi, Dritare, allkpop, top alabania, kultplus, Jawa Pos, Yahoo, I found many, many others), around the world, you don't need an unprecedented search to find out that it is a relevant prize.

About versions in other languages, about versions in other languages on the Italian wikipedia two articles were created about the award there, "BreakTudo Awards 2020" by Tommasucci (eight years contributing to Wikipedia) e "BreakTudo Awards" by Bennybardi (since 2019 on wikipedia, more than 3 thousand editions), on Wikipedia spain has the article BreakTudo Awards, created by Pandadri, on Wikipedia since 2012, more than 12,000 contributions. To do frivolous accusations about these people's contributions to Wikipedia is disrespectful at best. Regarding the coverage of the topic, websites that write about awards do not usually do a biography about the awards. There are thousands of awards, awards that have no relevance end up not having coverage, let alone such extensive coverage. I checked the first AFD, and they (users involved in this afd) are the same ones who tried to delete the page the first time they're trying to do it now. At least this WP:MEAT puppetry to delete articles, does this work also on Wikipedia in Brazil? Lol.

"I don't like it, I'll delete it", looks like it. Dorota Uchis (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Without a doubt, it is one of the most relevant awards in Brazil today.Although I don't edit much here on Wikie en, on Wiki pt I've been editing for 5 years now, so I haven't appeared out of nowhere here, often and there I'm used to users who propagate the page to delete. The award page was created on Wiki pt and at the time they deleted it due to lack of relevance, then the award gained relevance, but they never let it create, they always deleted it using the justification that it was deleted in 2016, which makes no sense. Because we are in 2021, I myself would have created the awards page on Wikipedia in pt, because yes it has relevance, but they don't allow it. Their strategy is to delete where it was created and always use justification that was deleted in such a place, I believe this is not the goal of wikipedia, put personal will above all. SirEdimon is doing a great disservice here on Wikipedia in English, putting several pages to eliminate to his liking. Another example of this is the scientist Marina Caskey, she has wikipedia in Portuguese and he hasn't put the page for deletion yet. The objective is perhaps the same, delete here in English, for there in Portuguese he uses the justification that her wikipedia has no relevance because it was deleted in English. JardelW, this one is the worst Wikipedia vandal in pt, lives in conflict with other administrators putting his personal voter on everything and breaking rules. Jardel has several blocks on Wikipedia in pt, for his bad behavior, here he only comes to vandalize too. Pedropaulohd (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Pedropaulohd, strike your personal attacks or I'll report you. This AfD is to discuss the article and not to attack other editors. SirEd ^Dimmi!!! 03:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I said on my rationale, it's not surprising that this new accounts with only few edits showed up here to vote "keep". It happened all the times this article (and all related to them) are put for deletion. Dorota Uchis was created on July 19, 2021, and has only 118 edits here. Pedropaulohd is even worst case. This editor says that they have been editing the pt.WP for 5 years, but they only have 298 edits since 2016 and even worse on Pt.WP they were blocked for not following Wikipedia policies. Additionally, they created 4 articles on pt.WP and three of them were deleted for [Lista de prêmios e indicações recebidos por Juliette Freire lack of notability] or use of Wikipedia as a means for promotion. I'm pretty sure several new non-established accounts will show up here to vote "keep".--SirEd ^Dimmi!!! 03:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This editor is recurring in adding unimportant information to artist articles. Recently, it has been inserting a "Prêmio Biscoito" (the "Oscar do Vale") in Anitta's list of awards lol J ^talk 09:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no reason for the article to be deleted, the source coverage it received is enough to keep it here. The award is one of the largest in Brazil, in 2020 it was among most voted, receiving 94 million votes, a number several times higher than other awards that have articles on wikipedia in pt. Examples Capricho Awards, received less than 1 million votes, not to mention that it does not receive coverage from sources. Premio Contigo Online, around 2 million and receives coverage only from the site itself. These are just a few examples of the awards that Wikipedia has in Brazil and are considered relevant. BreakTudo Awards is for sure one of the popular awards in Brazil, last year it was the most talked about subject on Twitter in Indonesia, reaching number #1 on Twitter's Trending Topics. Adding all the factors such as popularity, source coverage, article edits, BreakTudo Awards certainly meet the requirements to have an article here on Wikipedia. Furthermore, as mentioned above, it was created in Wikipedia Italy and Spain by users experienced in Wikipedia policies. Predofarofa (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the coverage of the article's references, the comment by sysop Conde Edmond Dantès in the previous discussion summarizes what they represent: The award is only mentioned in worthless entertainment portals. When there is any mention of a trustworthy portal, it is either a paid story/press office or talks more about third parties than about the award. J ^talk 09:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just like last time even with the suspicious votes their isn't enough to back up a deletion. The awards do seem to be notable and the articles seem to be properly constructed with contributions from several editors. The awards this year are set to be broadcasted on Telemilênio Brasil which from what I see is a mayor producer in Brasil so in that case it does appear that they are notable awards from that country. FanDePopLatino (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- FanDePopLatino, They are not notable in the country. It's easy to see when THEY DON'T HAVE an article at the pt.WP. SirEd ^Dimmi!!! 04:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - SirEdimon they don't have an article on pt.WP but that's because it was deleted in 2016 which is the year the awards first came out. Maybe they weren't notable then but now they do seem to have become notable with several sources talking about the awards and not just primary sources like in 2016. FanDePopLatino (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Warning that there is a case similar to this one being discussed on this page here. They detected a lot of socks, paid edits and cross-wiki spam. J ^talk 09:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is obvious spam/paid editing. The first version of the article, by a new editor making their first edit, has 30+ references. Then we have sub pages like BreakTudo_Award_for_International_Duo/Group! I think an SPI is highly appropriate here. --- Possibly ☎ 18:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As FanDePopLatino said, the award had its first edition in 2016 and had an article created on WikiPT, at the time it was not well-known, but today it is. There are several topics, people who were not well-known in 2019, and today there are no articles here. In 2020 it had 94 million votes, being one of the most voted awards in Brazil, extensive international coverage of the awards. It's enough to be considered remarkable, so it should be kept.

Here on wikipedia in English has the journalist's page Ana Paula Renault, she became known in Brazil in 2016 and at the time she was considered a phenomenon on the BBB 16 reality show, because of her repercussion people who didn't know Wikipedia's policies tried to create a page for her there. Only the page was always deleted. After she left the reality show, she became a great television personality, being a reporter, presenter, participant of major Brazilian TV programs, guest, always active. She managed to consolidate herself as a presenter on SBT, one of the largest Brazilian channels. In 2018, they created her page here and it is still on the air today, she is clearly a notorious figure.

But there on Wikipedia Br, never accepted creation, always using arguments from the past, from when it didn't have the notoriety it has today. I mentioned this case because in May of this year I created the journalist's page on Wikipedia in pt and they deleted it simply using "recurring appearance", so to say that something is notorious is to delete it in wikipedia in pt seems to be very easy in some cases. Several different Wikipedia users have already tried to create Ana Paula Renault's Wiki page, all to no avail. Gil do Vigor and Juliette Freire were completely unknown in Brazil at the beginning of the year, they participated in BBB 21 and as soon as the program ended they already had a page on Wikipedia, Gilberto was not even a finalist in the edition. I understand that they are both notorious for having pages there and the decision to keep their pages was right. Comparing their filmography, Ana Paula Renault is also notorious for having a page there and not have. In this way, it cannot be said that a topic is not known because it has no wikipedia page in Portuguese. Ricardo Fett (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral comment I placed the 'not a ballot' template atop this page on Monday evening to assuage the nominator's concerns about possible canvassing, and being unsure about a vote! myself as the nomination has gone on. I haven't seen any kind of sock or meat puppet bloc show up, contrary to the nominator's assumption, nor any brigading, which makes me feel like they were trying to build a mountain out of a molehill, nor any cause for an SPI. I also fail to see what the behavior in the Prix Versailles noms, which involves a completely different language than this one, has to do with this nomination. To the nom and their supporters, please argue solely on our policies and do not attack the 'keep' voters here, because we take their arguments as equally as yours as long as they have no editing issues. Nate • (chatter) 01:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is incredibly suspicious that there is not a ptwiki article on this topic. Also, many of the references in the article are press releases and/or broken. While the awards certainly exist, their own self-promotion seems to overwhelm any neutral coverage. The Keep votes are all from editors who are almost solely contributors in the "Latin American music" topic area; this could be because they know more about the notability of this event than the rest of us, or it could be that they care less about Wikipedia policy on reliable sources and notability. My question is: what are the best WP:THREE sources here? Preferably references that are not press releases, not celebrity gossip sites, not blogs or Youtube videos. Also a comment on the television situation would be nice; as far as I can tell the "broadcasts" are just Youtube streams. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@力: It's interesting to note that those users who voted for "Keep" have an affinity for the same topic (Latin pop culture/music/webcelebrities) and are accounts that were out of recent editions in recent months, but were parachuted into this thread (or are new users whose first edition is to defend the award, with rich details). The arguments are always the same: exposing the thousands of partnerships that supposedly sustain the award's notoriety. In 2016, the website BreakTudo was a partner of R7.com (of Grupo Record, linked to TV Record) and they used this argument to try to keep the article. They later discovered that some users involved in the discussion were sock puppets. J ^talk 08:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with User:力, it is suspicious. I started to copyedit the article and I removed the assertion stating that 94million people had taken part as the references on it were junk and low-quality to say the least. Almost immediately another statement to the effect was added with new references within seconds, which I found extremely odd. The two references that were added, one doesn't like a decent ref, a poorly designed site, the other is the company. The whole crux of the article as being notable depends on that fact and I can't verify it. The large number of categories being awarded, 25, would normally get a similar article deleted on that number alone, as it indicates as it is is a industry or corporate award. Prestigious award tend to few categories. I've seen it time and time again. The whole thing is odd. It should either deleted until better references are found (where is the mainstream news reporting on it) or it should drafted in the meantime. scope_creep^Talk 09:37, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding the article, I have not seen any YouTube sources being used to reference information as cited in this Afd, so the information is not true. About the broadcast of the awards, BreakTudo Awards 2021 will be broadcast simultaneously on TV and YouTube. The brazilian channel TV Cidade will broadcast the award show on TV, Telemilênio Brasil will broadcast it on YouTube and the Yeeaah channel will broadcast the event to pay TV, the channel is available several Brazilian services such as Vivo TV, Box Brazil, Sky and Oi TV. In Brazil there is the Prêmio Jovem Brasileiro, also one of the largest in the country, it has never been broadcast on Television, always on the internet. Last year it was broadcast on its own YouTube channel, which has 38,000 subscribers.. Regarding the sources I used to add this information to improve the article, they are TNOnline, which, in addition to Jornal, is a highly respected TV in Brazil, the portal is a partner of Universo Online, the largest online media group in Brazil. The second source is from the Observatório da Música, which is one of the largest and most respected sources on music in Brazil, it is part of the Observatorio Group, one of the largest entertainment in Brazil, and is also a partner of Uol e Brasil Online, nominated for the IBest Award, the third source is Portal Rap Mais, one of the most important in Brazil on music and the largest in the country on rap. the fourth source is from Latin Pop Brasil, the largest Brazilian portal on Latin music, MSN partner in Brazil. The sources I used in updating the article are independent, reliable and reputable. Ricardo Fett (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The three references you added are press-releases with the identical information in each one. scope_creep^Talk 18:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I still see people here are caught up on the fact that there's no article for the BreakTudo Awards in Portuguese Wikipedia saying that means it's not notable. I disagree because a wikipedia article doesn't define if someone or something is notable or not. Take Peruvian cumbia group called Grupo 5 for example. This group has been around since 1973, they're still active releasing chart topping hits, have tens of millions of views on YouTube with a video having 145 million views, but they do not have an article on any wikipedia not even in Castilian (wrongly called Spanish) or Runa Simi (a.k.a Quechua). That doesn't mean that they are not a notable group. In fact, they are even more notable than others that do have wikipedia articles. So just because the BreakTudo Awards don't have an article on pt.WP that doesn't mean that they are not notable. FanDePopLatino (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is completely nonsense argument, mainly because it doesn't address the fact that it was deleted on the pt Wikipedia, the dodgy looking references and huge number of categories and 94million figure that looks like it is off a press-release. Looking at the references, using List of newspapers in Brazil, the list of national newspapers, there is not one single article in a mainstream Brazilian newspaper that is referenced in the article. Instead they are all these low-quality sites. Where is the high quality WP:SECONDARY sources that indicate that it is notable. Lets look at the first 10 references:

Ref 1 This is a listing of information, there is no analysis and its not in-depth. It is WP:PRIMARY.
Ref 2 This is not WP:SECONDARY, it is merely reporting off a press-release. It is a clickbait site and it looks as though it comes from a press-release.
Ref 3 Yahoo news. Nomination news. It states at the top, 1-minute read. It is not in-depth at all.
Ref 4 It is another article, listing the nomintations, which would suggest it comes off a press-release. It is a click-bait site and it is not-indepth.
Ref 5 Small paragraphs of 1 or 2 lines with images. It is true clickbait site. Not in-depth.
Ref 6. Confirmation of a win. Not in-depth, merely another clickbait site.
Ref 7] CNN, a lot heavier. Very short article. Not-indepth. It does confirm it is an international award and its states its one of Brazil's most anticipated awards.
Ref 8 Confirming a nomination for a reality star. Another very short article, not in-depth, no analysis.
Ref 9 Top 5 groups you need to know. Click-bait site. Non-RS likely.
Ref 10 Another listing of nominations that looks like it comes from the same press-release in 2020. A very short article with no analysis and not in-depth.

Most of the references are click-bait sites, that are not in-depth, with some of them being driven by PR/press-releases. The majority of them are very shallow and offer no analysis. They are primary sources and don't define notability. I think the award is probably notable, as defined by CNN Malaysia, indicating it had some coverage in two continents, potentially the beginnnings of satisfying WP:SIGCOV. The award has been out since 2010 but has no mainstream Brazilian Newspaper coverage, which is suspect. I find that really weird. The references ar insufficient at the moment to prove it is notable. They are all PR, annoucements and routine coverage. scope_creep^Talk 19:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - scope_creep If you read above where I voted to "keep" the article you will see that someone replied to me saying (partially in all capital letters) that the awards weren't notable because they don't have an article on pt.WP. I replied to that user as well explaining how maybe the awards weren't notable in 2016 and the article was created WP:TOOSOON but could be considered notable now. The reason I spoke about "Grupo 5" as an example is because I saw someone else mentioning how the BreakTudo Awards don't have an article on pt.WP so I wanted to give an example of another topic that didn't have an article but still was notable. I would appreciate it if you read everything I wrote before you accuse me of making nonsense arguments. I'm not trying to cause any heat amongst anyone here, I just want to share my thoughts on the subject so we can come to a conclusion to this by helping each other out. By the way, where did you see that the awards started in 2010? I thought they started in 2016 but I might have just missed that. Could you please share with me where you found that information so that I can look into it to properly add to the article? Thanks! FanDePopLatino (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It makes no sense to say that all article links are pre-releases, to say that they are not deep enough. The articles I mentioned are not pre-releases, I can read Portuguese and clearly they are different. But of course at some point they will cite common facts, for example, if a website is saying that the broadcast will be on TV "Y", another news portal that talks about the broadcast will also say that the event will be broadcast on TV "Y", because it cannot say that it will be by TV "X" just so it doesn't look like an article from another website, What websites can say in different ways about awards is about nominees. It has to be taken into account, is that news portals are not going to be doing in-depth publications about whatever the award is, because what matters most to these entertainment portals are the artists. These portals simply wouldn't talk about the awards, if it wasn't relevant, if it was interesting for the public, because there are thousands of votes, awards out there, and you don't see coverage as diverse as BreakTudo Awards has.

The MTV Millennial Brasil - link to check - arrived in Brazil in 2018 and the news that the portals published about the award were all based on a note released by MTV. In this way, if you are going to read the articles about will, there is the same information written by the news portals themselves. But the sites publish because they think it's relevant, you won't find this in-depth information about MTV Miaw Brasil, because what are they going to say? Everyone already knows, it's an MTV poll, which originated in Mexico and went to Brazil. The event is happening and what websites are going to say about the nominees, winner and performers, they don't spend time writing things that it is inferred that everyone already knows or can research. The BreakTudo Awards are relevant, the media coverage it has is enough to keep the article. This coverage so deep that's being charged here doesn't make any sense, the coverage has been deep enough. This is not a subject of scientific research to have such in-depth coverage, if it were there it would be necessary, the coverage covers the facts. Ricardo Fett (talk) 00:30, 01 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh my gosh, how much text. This is definitely a notorious award. I found links about this topic in the newspapers O Dia, Uol, Imirante, IG, in pt. In Spanish, I found where he is cited with considerable notoriety in La Repulica, Ciudad Magazine, Protagonista, and El Comercio. No further. Dorota Uchis (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another WP:SPA. I plan to open a SPI. scope_creep^Talk 22:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More input focused on the most relevant questions (the notability of the subject and the quality of sources about) would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are several affiliated articles (2017 BreakTudo Awards, BreakTudo Awards 2018, BreakTudo Awards 2019, BreakTudo Awards 2020, BreakTudo Award for International Female Artist, and BreakTudo Award for International Duo/Group) that should probably be considered for deletion as well. Even if the main article is found to be notable (I haven't been able to investigate the sources yet), the related topics may not merit their own articles. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RunningTiger123 I made improvements to the article, added several independent and reputable sources in Brazil, I believe this makes it comply WP:GNG. About the affluent pages I believe could be deleted or redirected to BreakTudo Awards. About the sources, I added this Atrevida magazine, highly regarded in Brazil, this one from the Terra portal, extremely respected, this one from the Internet Group portal, one of the largest in the country. Other important vehicles in the country also spoke about the award this year. These sources are reputable and I edit on wikipedia in Brazil and only these sources would be enough to keep an article there, as long as the topic is notorious or that it has not been deleted when it was not yet notorious, as is the case of BreakTudo Awards that was erased in 2016, its first year. Because this award was becoming notorious, last year it had 94 million votes and this is huge in the country.Ricardo Fett (talk) 13:30, 04 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've decided to ask for my opinion regarding the sources even though my original comment had nothing to do with that, I guess I'll respond. I did a search for "atrevida revista" at google.com.br and found no clear indicators of the source's reliability or any signs that the magazine received external coverage, which doesn't bode well for its status as an RS. The poor sourcing at pt:Atrevida also isn't a good sign that the magazine is "highly regarded in Brazil". Terra and IG are internet portals, meaning their content is mostly sourced from external sites, so they can't really be called reliable; instead, we need to judge the original links. (For instance, the Terra source is by "The Music Journal Brazil", so that is the source that has to be judged.) And please stop discussing the number of votes — that has absolutely nothing to do with notability in reliable sources, which is the requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia. RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for your politeness in responding. In the case of the Internet Group, as far as I was able to check, it was the portal that published it through its own means, whereas through other sites it also has a publicity on Ig Gente The MusicJournal Brazil . I forgot to mention that I also added a source from IstoÉ magazine, it is one of the 3 most important Brazilian magazines, people say it is equivalent to Time magazine in the United States. Because of the publication on ie, the publication also appeared on MSN Brazil. Ricardo Fett (talk) 14:35, 04 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolute WP:PROMO nonsense. Delete and WP:SALT. KidAd • SPEAK 18:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Like I said above before it was relisted, it is possible that the awards were created WP:TOOSOON on pt.WP so their article was deleted there but now the awards do seem to have become notable and the article seems to have been properly sourced and edited. FanDePopLatino (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the article is bombed with references, the reliable sources seem to be purely covering Blackpink winning an award a few years ago. The case for notability for the award seems a bit weak to me from this; I'm balancing that with the WP:TNT case per the possible sock, refbombing, and other concerns expressed by other editors above. The keep !votes above seem to be making a WP:ITSNOTABLE argument-to-avoid. I'd reconsider my !vote in the presence of a solid WP:THREE. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Woodroofe I have added to the article some reliable and independent sources here in Brazil and I believe I now comply with WP:GNG. About affiliated articles (2017 BreakTudo Awards, BreakTudo Awards 2018, BreakTudo Awards 2019, BreakTudo Awards 2020, BreakTudo Award for International Female Artist, and BreakTudo Award for International Duo/Group). I believe they shouldn't have articles of their own, they could be deleted or redirected to BreakTudo Awards. I added this Atrevida magazine, highly regarded in Brazil, this one from the Terra portal, extremely respected, this one from the Internet Group portal, one of the largest in the country. Wouldn't it be a case of reconsidering your vote? Ricardo Fett (talk) 13:43, 04 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rather than wade through all the sources in the article, I googled "BreakTudo Awards", "BTD Awards Brasil" and "BT Awards Brasil" (searching the latter two without "Brasil" threw up page after page of false positives). Of the four [sic] pages of results for "BreakTudo Awards", precisely one was more than a non-WP:RS listing or announcement of nominations or results - two paragraphs in pt:Jornal de Brasília, a seemingly-reputable local newspaper in Brasilia - and even they read like a press release. Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG.

I agree that the daughter articles identified by RunningTiger123, above, should also go.

The keep !votes in the 2016 deletion discussion on ptwiki, pt:Wikipédia:Páginas para eliminar/BreakTudo Awards, were effectively WP:ITSNOTABLE; the delete ones were based on inability to locate sources. Two attempts to recreate the article in 2020 (see pt:BreakTudo Awards) were speedily deleted under pt:WP:A4 (= en:WP:A7). If neither Portuguese- nor English-speaking editors can locate WP:RS, I conclude they don't exist. (My limited experience of ptwiki notability standards is that they don't differ greatly from enwiki ones, although they may accept fewer but not lower-quality sources. I once prompted a ptwiki admin (and who I now see contributed to the 2020 enwiki AFD debate) who I knew to start an AFD debate there; corresponding discussions on enwiki had resulted in deletion. I was invited to join in, but declined on the grounds they were doing very well without me. Rightly, they gave no weight to what had happened in enwiki.) Narky Blert (talk) 09:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Narky Blert The discussion about BreakTudo Awards 2016 decided to erase and at that BreakTudo Awards it didn't really seem to be notorious, it seems that the awards were growing little by little, but today it seems to be notorious. Once the Wikipedia article is deleted in Pt, when the topic was not well known, it is easy to delete it in the future if it becomes notorious and is create, that's because just propose for quick elimination based on decided by "PE". I have added several sources that are very reputable in Brazil, can you check and reconsider your vote? Atrevida magazine, highly regarded in Brazil, this one from the Terra portal, extremely respected, this one from the Internet Group portal. About the affluent pages I believe they should be eliminated or redirected. Ricardo Fett (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found at least two of those. They look as if they're based on press releases. They do not look independent. Narky Blert (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Narky Blert. Of the sources provided for a WP:THREE, Atrevida magazine looks to be the best (roughly comparable to Teen Vogue or similar in the US), but the article there is just a (long) listing of award categories. It may be of note for other editors following that this listing appeared in Atrevida less than a day ago. I think it's plausible that the award will eventually reach notability, for now it appears likely that it is WP:TOOSOON. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

pt:Atrevida. Draw your own conclusions.

If the BreakTudo Award is notable, why is there apparently nothing in Globo? That's where I'd have expected to find it. Narky Blert (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The text published on the website "Viralizou" does not provide much support for the article, as it copied an institutional text from the awards website (or perhaps it is a text from a press office). "TodaTeen" is a low quality source, as is "Atrevida" website (it's the same as using gossip tabloids as source). And the website "Terra" pulled a text made by the website "The Music Journal Brasil" (they no longer work with the publication of their own texts). J ^talk 22:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep My vote is to keep. This award has an article in Istoé magazine, which, at least in Brazil, is one of the most reliable sources there is, the magazine is something mainstream in the country. I believe that the source of Atrevida magazine is very reliable, yes, as Russ said, it is equivalent to Teen Vogue magazine, it is by pt:Editora Escala. I don't have much knowledge about Todateen. The Music Journal Brasil is a very reliable source in Brazil, specialist in music content. From what I saw in this discussion, there are other sources that also contribute to the maintenance of this article, like Ig, Uol, O Dia, CNN, Yahoo, between others. Sara Melo da Silva Costa (talk) 23:13, 06 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another recently created account that already has prior knowledge to participate in the discussion, but comments like others that have already appeared here. Isn't that suspicious? J ^talk 04:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The issue on why this award does not have an article in ptwiki came up a few times above. The answer is simple. ptwiki is much more strict than enwiki. I have my opinion on if this is good or bad, but it's not immediately relevant now. A lot of things that have articles in enwiki would be deleted in ptwiki in a heartbeat, even if they are about Brazilian topics. So the fact that this was deleted from ptwiki in 2016 is irrelevant to the discussion if it should be kept in enwiki in 2021. Mateussf (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep although some sources are not from major portals, there are sources good enough to keep the article. The award seems to be quite notorious. Union920502 (talk) 19:30, 09 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please specify WP:THREE of them. Narky Blert (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2021 (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. RL0919 (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liyana Yus[edit]

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

Largely unsourced, never competed at Miss Universe 2020, and dubious claims are made throughout the article. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 14:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per A7 by Materialscientist. Non-admin closure. --MuZemike 19:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bandwagon Musical Supplies[edit]

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

Local store - not enough coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2021 (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 12:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Davood Shirali[edit]

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

Lacks the multiple significant roles in notable productions to pass WP:NACTOR nor is there any indication of anything innovative or unique about his career (please note that having a large fanbase is now deprecated). In addition, every source cited is a database profile page or a passing mention in a long list of actors. Searches in Persian here and here failed to yield anything that would indicate a WP:GNG pass. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuf Gobir[edit]

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

Sounds like a very capable man, but does he meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL? I couldn't establish that he does. Boleyn (talk) 08:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ – there's no presumptive notability for government bureaucrats, and my searches aren't finding anything that goes beyond trivial single-sentence mentions. While I'm glad to reevaluate if satisfactory sourcing can be found, it seems to me that he fails the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure about that? Have you looked at Google Books? The name gives a few false positives but many of the hits seem to be about this subject, with his name often being prefixed by Alhaji. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While many of the Google Books hits (which I had looked at) are precisely the sort of trivial single-sentence mentions that I referenced above, I now see that some of them do indeed provide a bit more. Combining them probably produces enough sources to meet WP:BASIC, and in any event the difficulty of searching and the likely presence of offline sources makes this a perfect case to apply an WP:NEXIST-based inference that more coverage is available. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A search for "Yusuf Amuda Gobir" through google books brings up enough sources [37] [38] [39] [40][41][42][43][44][45][46] to indicate that more offline sources exist and that subject was notable for his work in the 60s and 70s and passes WP:BASIC.Princess of Ara_(talk) 13:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Permanent Secretary is a very senior post in Nigeria (effectively at par with Ministers), esp. in Ministry of Defense. --Soman (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most senior civil servant in the Ministry of Defence during the Biafran crisis; eminently notable. Entries in biographical encyclopedia, meets WP:ANYBIO c.3.^[1]^[2] Frequent mentions across numerous texts which discuss Nigeria in the 1960s and 1970s. "...Yusuf Gobir, and Edwin Ogbu, all of whom were highly regarded, and all of whom contributed immensely to preserving Nigeria's unity."^[3]

References

^ Uwechue, Raph; Limited, Africa Books (1991). Makers of Modern Africa. 248: Africa Journal Limited.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
^ Adeogun, Segun (1991). Who is who in Kwara State?. Segun Adeogun. pp. 100–101.
^ Ihonde, Moses O. (2004). First Call: An Account of the Gowon Years. Diamond Publications Limited. p. 153. ISBN 978-978-2938-25-1.

regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2021 (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. Clear consensus that this individual isn't notable at this time; happy to provide a draftspace/userspace copy to anyone who cares for it (and any admin should feel free to provide such without consulting me). Vanamonde (Talk) 20:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Caden Tolentino[edit]

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

Meets the too lax standards of WP:NFOOTY technically, but clearly fails the more generally accepted WP:GNG/WP:BIO standards. Not a single reliable, independent source (so not associated with the University or the football league) has given any significant attention to this young player so far (i.e. anything beyong mentioning his name or including him in a statistics database). May well become notable in the future, but not yet. Fram (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is 17 years and is currently actively playing hence see little point deleting it passes WP:NFOOTY.If the subject had retired or was injured it was different but see little point deleting someone currently actively playing in WP:FPL club and has last played in June 2021 Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SNGs including WP:FOOTY ,WP:NBASKETBALL ,WP:NCRIC exist to provide for the inclusion of certain defined subjects that cannot immediately be shown to pass GNG. An SNG provides for a presumption of notability, not a presumption of non-notability An SNG cannot be used to exclude/delete an article when the subject passes GNG, but the reverse is patently absurd because that would negate the entire reason for the existence of SNGs.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note subject is part of North Carolina FC first team for this season 2021 roaster and has played in June 2021 and the season is ongoing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yes, there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively - but there is a longstanding convention to allow young players/those with ongoing careers more leeway, and I think the same should be allowed here. He is 17 and more sources will be written in due course. If they are not or he never plays again etc. then delete at that point. GiantSnowman 14:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the logical thing is to move this to draft, and to revive it if and when he becomes notable. Keeping and waiting a few years to see if he has ever played again is not the way notability works, and is not how new page patrol can work. The special "rules" for sports (notability should be met eventually, not now, but everything mus be sourced now or you will be blocked or topic banned) are becoming a plague. Work within the rules set out for enwiki as a whole, or start a separate footballfanwiki. Fram (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – I agree with Fram: this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. A pass of NFOOTY creates a presumption in favor of notability, but that presumption has been rebutted here since, as appears to be uncontested, he fails the GNG. Perhaps that will change; perhaps it won't. But we're not a crystal ball, and draftification preserves the content. There's no harm here in waiting until reliable sources have actually covered Tolentino in depth. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify. NSPORT provides a rebuttable presumption of GNG that is meant to protect against automatic AfC failure. It also serves as a signal to other editors that they probably don't need to waste their time starting an AfD since they can assume coverage will show up during BEFORE. But given the poor track record of NFOOTY in predicting GNG, editors are rightfully scrutinizing footballer stubs more frequently and determining they don't meet GNG. The correct action in cases where someone does not have SIGCOV but might in the near future is to draftify; and in this case USL L1 does not in my opinion correlate strongly enough with in-depth coverage to even justify holding in draftspace, although there is no harm in moving there for a few months. JoelleJay (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The presumption of notability in WP:NFOOTBALL is invalid here where a former academy player has made a single appearance in USL L1 but there is no in-depth coverage in reliable sources (i.e., comprehensive failure of WP:GNG). Jogurney (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no SIGCOV, and I'm not convinced that it's worth draftifying. The "appearance" was as a 97th-minute substitute. He barely took the field before the final whistle. As the article states, he's "committed to play college soccer at North Carolina State University", so he won't be actively playing in a WP:FPL club. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Dooks[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 07:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a search did not find any independent RS. --- Possibly ☎ 13:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in The Courierhere, The Press & Journal an extract from a longer article is here%, AllMusic staff written album reviews here and here Atlantic306 (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Atlantic, but I trimmed it and it probably warrants a further trim. Geschichte (talk) 13:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to the sources shared by Atlantic306. NemesisAT (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khoi Dao[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG, nor BLP. No reliable sources provided; page created by blocked editor. Whiteguru (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 11:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 11:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:NACTOR. Voiced the lead roles in the English dubs for March Comes in Like a Lion, Kuroko no Basket, and Higurashi ([47]); this passes criterion 1 of NACTOR. Curbon7 (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 4 sources are Tweets, one is self published. Only the new source provided by above Keep voter is acceptable, but that is a passing mention, as such he has no significant news coverage. He also fails WP:NACTOR as there are no significant roles. Peter303x (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Peter303x, I agree that sourcing is scant, but how would you define significant roles in this case? In context, I think that 3 lead roles in major productions certainly qualify as "multiple significant roles". Curbon7 (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - To me a significant role is not only a lead role, but also the film or show would have to be significant.Peter303x (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Peter303x, Going by MAL, Kuroko no Basket is the 105th most popular anime, while March Comes in Like a Lion is the 275th most popular anime and the 11th highest rated anime. Certainly not minor productions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Curbon7. While this article could definitely use better sourcing and cleanup, he played a major character in March Comes In like a Lion, Kuroko's Basketball, and Higurashi When They Cry like Curbom7 has said above, as well as Cancer cell in Cells at Work!, who isn't a minor character in the second season. Link20XX (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Curbon7. The subject specific guideline for voice actors has clearly been met. Dream Focus 20:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NACTOR, as per Curbon7. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:47, 10 August 2021 (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 Ken Medema. Despite the good faith effort made to make this a viable DAB page, there's consensus here that there's only one reasonable target, and therefore a redirect is superior to a DAB. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Medema[edit]

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

This set index article contains only one entry with a bluelink. Ken Medema is the only article in the English Wikipedia that contains "Medema". GoingBatty (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't see the point in this article which, as the nom says, only links to one article in Wikipedia. Apart from that there are a couple of external links to information about two other people with the same surname but who don't have WP articles. Since we aren't a repository of random links, the article serves no useful purpose. Neiltonks (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ken Medema until anyone else has an en.wiki article or a mention worth linking. PamD 07:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ken Medema, consistent with {{R from surname}}.—Bagumba (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've trimmed the external links and added an entry for the Medema factory that just about meets WP:DABMENTION, and I see no indication the musician is a primary topic. The corresponding Dutch Wikipedia dab (nl:Medema) has entries for a publicist and a publishing house with the name, but I'm not sure how noteworthy they are by enwiki standards, so I've omitted them. – Uanfala (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to facilitate uninhibited Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, that's an argument for the deletion of any disambiguation page. The uninhibited search here throws up a large number of Medemas in article references (the sort of thing you do not really want to appear in the search results), while making it nearly impossible to find any content about the bus manufacturer. And if there are any relevant topics that do come up in the search results (I don't see any), then they can simply be added to the dab page. – Uanfala (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ken Medema, until disambig with another Medema article is needed. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zubair Anam[edit]

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

A non notable politician. Creator claims that subject is notable and removed PROD tag. Hence i brought this for afd. For me Subject is a non-notable politician fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Politician who failed before the starting line, easily fails WP:NPOL. Curbon7 (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject is only notable for a single event. No indication of meeting WP:GNG. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vice-president of a student union is not an WP:NPOL-passing office, and having been arrested at protests does not bolster notability in and of itself either. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Catch: The Hold Not Taken[edit]

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

Non-notable documentary film, lacking significant coverage by independent sources per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 10:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find coverage to support notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't appears to be notable, and there is coverage on notability, and there aren't any reliable and adequate sources on this movie, I checked some English websites on this. Cheers. Tahaaleem ^Talk 19:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but I could be persuaded to change to keep if notability is established. — Czello 12:57, 3 August 2021 (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 Wrong place. I'm sorry but this is for discussion about whether article should be deleted. The one that you try to delete is a draft, not article. (Close by non-admin) 1Way4Together - J. Smile | Awards and similar items are not for sales 09:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Rajarshi Mitra[edit]

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

ItsSkV08 (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ItsSkV08 (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep as withdrawn by nominator (18:52, 2 August) with no-one advocating deletion (Wikipedia:Speedy keep#Applicability, #1). Daniel (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angola, Delaware[edit]

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

I have mixed impulses about this one, and I hope someone else can come up with something because searching is completely hopeless. So the first problem is that "Angola" and "Angola by the Bay" are not the same place, as doing a GNIS query will show, as well as eight other places around the area with "Angola" somewhere in the name. "Angola by the Bay" is a big gated community NE of Angola itself— maybe, for GNIS describes Angola itself as a locale. I've fixed the article to have the right GNIS ID and coordinates, but that still leaves the question of what Angola is. I'm not wedded to GNIS's classification, and the FWP text tends to argue that it was perhaps a tiny village. I have to say "was" because there's nothing there now. But the other possibility is that Angola was in fact a larger, vague area encompassing some or all of the nine other places named after it. SO as I said at the beginning, I'm looking for help here. Mangoe (talk) 02:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two of the references in the article seem to prove Angola, Delaware exists. I believe this means this topic passes WP:GEOLAND and therefore satifies the criteria for inclusion. The first reference is the Google Books reference - pages 501 and 502. Input the search term "Angola" for this book to see these pages. This locale is distinct from "Angola Neck". The other reference describes a Methodist group and church located in Angola, Delaware in 1800, 1832, 1968, 2009, 2010 [48]. I haven't done a thorough job of checking the other references yet. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple sources confirm Angola was a "town", "community", "village" or "populated place". The earliest reference I can find to Angola, the Delaware community, is this 1854 newspaper article, but there are 723 more results on NewspaperArchive to sift through. I expanded the article last night, using mostly news stories from Wilmington newspapers. More could certainly be added. Even those without NewspaperArchive access can find info about Angola on Google Books, or check its population figures going back to the 1890 Census (Angola's population back then was 12), the 1900 Census (pop. 18), or the 1920 Census (population 95). Even as early as 1800, Angola had a school, and by the 1830s, it had a church. For a while, it had more than one church, as a second church was blown off its foundations, according to an 1876 article. There was an Angola Post Office, an Angola Telephone Company, and a general store. There is history here, and not all of it great: the Delaware Federal Writers' Project confirms Angola was a segregated community in the 1950s, and confirms the fact the area was called Angola as early as the 1600s due to the imported slaves forcibly brought to the area. Possibly some mention can be made of the modern subdivisions around Angola in the Wikipedia article (to bring the article up to modern times), but this is definitely a noted and noteworthy place. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD was closed as "keep" by User:Steve Quinn at 22:54 on 1 August 2021. As the closure was performed by an involved editor and took place before the prescribed period for the listing had ended, I, acting as an uninvolved administrator in line with WP:DPR#NAC, have vacated the closure and reopened the AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Steve's argument is flawed in that a place simply existing is not enough to satisfy WP:GEOLAND. However, I'm in concurrence with Firsfron here. The fact it was separated in multiple censuses means the community previously had legality, conferring notability. Additionally, even if it wasn't a legal place, the history of the community as a former slave settlement and the decent-though-lacking sourcing regarding that meet GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 11:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this one's been fleshed out enough to demonstrate notability. Hog Farm _Talk 17:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-comment Given the improvements made, for which I tank those who did so, I think this article should be kept. Mangoe (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Speaking from personal experience, this area is now just a bunch of large vacation-oriented housing developments rather than a distinct community (similar to the description at nearby Long Neck, Delaware), but the article has enough historical content to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 20:08, 2 August 2021 (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 08:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cahoon Creek[edit]

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

Mass-produced article about nondescript creek. It is said that "Major geographical and geological features featured on maps, such as ... rivers" are notable, but this is not major and is smaller than a river. Geschichte (talk) 08:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note: The criterion the nominator is using is incorrect. They are using WP:MAPOUTCOMES, which is not a criteria but rather a general AfD list. The criteria that should be applied here is WP:GEOLAND criterion 4 "Named natural features". Curbon7 (talk) 10:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that MAPOUTCOMES was invoked by the deprodder. Geschichte (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's WP:NGEO that says maps and tables alone do not establish notability, and this only sources the map name database GNIS, one of many mass-produced by this user without further significant coverage. Reywas92^Talk 14:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Small creek fails GEOLAND and GNG. In addition to the issues mentioned above, the deprodder failed to verify the unlikely claim that this is a "river"; the describes it as a "stream". –dlthewave ☎ 16:03, 3 August 2021 (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 08:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Calhoun Creek[edit]

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

Mass-produced article about nondescript creek. It is said that "Major geographical and geological features featured on maps, such as ... rivers" are notable, but this is not major and is smaller than a river. Geschichte (talk) 08:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note: The criterion the nominator is using is incorrect. They are using WP:MAPOUTCOMES, which is not a criteria but rather a general AfD list. The criteria that should be applied here is WP:GEOLAND criterion 4 "Named natural features". Curbon7 (talk) 10:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that MAPOUTCOMES was invoked by the deprodder. Geschichte (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's WP:NGEO that says maps and tables alone do not establish notability, and this only sources the map name database GNIS, one of many mass-produced by this user without further significant coverage. Reywas92^Talk 14:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Small creek fails GEOLAND and GNG. In addition to the issues mentioned above, the deprodder failed to verify the unlikely claim that this is a "river"; the describes it as a "stream". –dlthewave ☎ 16:00, 3 August 2021 (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 08:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dunderberg Creek[edit]

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

Mass-produced article about nondescript creek. It is said that "Major geographical and geological features featured on maps, such as ... rivers" are notable, but this is not major and is smaller than a river. Geschichte (talk) 08:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note: The criterion the nominator is using is incorrect. They are using WP:MAPOUTCOMES, which is not a criteria but rather a general AfD list. The criteria that should be applied here is WP:GEOLAND criterion 4 "Named natural features". Curbon7 (talk) 10:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that MAPOUTCOMES was invoked by the deprodder. Geschichte (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's WP:NGEO that says maps and tables alone do not establish notability, and this only sources the map name database GNIS, one of many mass-produced by this user without further significant coverage. Reywas92^Talk 14:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Small creek fails GEOLAND and GNG. In addition to the issues mentioned above, the deprodder failed to verify the unlikely claim that this is a "river"; the describes it as a "stream". –dlthewave ☎ 16:03, 3 August 2021 (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 Burping#Contest. Consensus to not keep, but no clear consensus to delete, so redirection is a compromise (plus it is a likely search term as the burper is mentioned in the target article). Sandstein 07:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Hunn[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a person with no properly sourced claim to passing our inclusion standards. The notability claim on offer here is that he holds a Guinness World Record for the loudest known burp, sourced only to the Guinness website -- but holding a Guinness record for some random silly thing is not an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source media coverage about him and his achievement. Guinness liberally hands out records for literally any inconsequential thing somebody deigns to contact them about, but an encyclopedia needs to see a reason why anybody ought to care. Bearcat (talk) 05:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Records for random silly things are regularly in the news. Right now, our own ITN is headed by a new record for the women's hop, skip and jump, for example. And then there's all the other silly Olympic sports for which there is strong competition but the winner there must be solo synchronised swimming! The subject in this case has attracted lots of continuing coverage over the years for their repeated record setting – see the BBC or Guardian, for example. There's a lot more coverage to be found by browsing the search links above and so it's clear that WP:BEFORE hasn't been done and WP:NEXIST applies. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the coverage is trivial. The comparison to Olympic Games watched by millions of viewers is probably meant as a joke? Geschichte (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely and utterly non-notable. The idea that he is notable through holding a Guinness record would only apply if Guinness still kept the standards it did in the McWhirters' day (and no I don't endorse their politics!) but we all know that it doesn't. If it did, someone's being cited by Guinness probably would make them notable for Wikipedia, but it doesn't and that's that. To cite a silly season article, in however reliable a source, tells its own story. Should note that even 15 years ago, when our standards were much lower, two out of three contributors wanted the article to be merged with another. No excuses now. RobinCarmody (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable based on a single source. Should there be other sources, creator can add for review. Peter303x (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Guinness "records" mean absolutely nothing, just pay them a few thousand and they'll give you whatever record you want. This is just some random guy with no claim to notability and no significant coverage. Mlb96 (talk) 03:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons cited above. Lots of sources out there. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect to Burping#Contest, which already mention the key details. A trivial Guinness record is not exactly notability, even with some human-interest stories related to it. Reywas92^Talk 20:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the WP:SUSTAINED coverage shared by Andrew Davidson. Articles in BBC News and The Guardian is enough to pass WP:GNG imo. Two votes above appear to ignore Andrew's comment and only focus on the present article, not the sources available elsewhere. NemesisAT (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Burping#Contest as per Reywas92 . I am not sure if the coverage quoted by Andrew Davidson really works as asserting notability for an encyclopaedia as the BBC link is not from the main news website but actually on the Newsround website, which is a childrens' news programme that often covers events of interest to children which would not pass WP:GNG, and the Guardian article is marked as part of the 'silly season', where strange events that would not normally be considered notable enough for inclusion in a newspaper are covered during slow periods. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 11:57, 9 August 2021 (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. Previously speedy-deleted per WP:A7, and no significant improvement has been made since then. Creator appears to be in violation of our rules on undisclosed paid editing, as well. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angelika Gribova[edit]

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

Vanity/promo piece on a non-notable ROTM model. There are sources, yes, but not exactly of great quality or depth. The 'Miss France' claim is a red herring, or worse. And the book looks like a self-publish. Fails WP:GNG / WP:NMODEL.

Would have requested speedy, but for the Miss France mention (which, if it were true, would make this notable) and the number of sources listed, which is why this needs more scrutiny. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing ([[User }talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 05:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Significant as a model, here https://www.lofficielitalia.com/moda/angelika-gribova-intervista-modella-libro-vita-privata

https://bazaarvietnam.vn/nhan-vat/con-duong-su-nghiep-cua-nguoi-mau-quoc-te-angelika-gribova/ https://lofficielbaltics.com/beauty/miss-theglam-monaco-international-2018 [49] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterwebwiki (talk • contribs)

Comment No need to repeat sources already listed in the article. And any new ones should be added to the article, they are more useful there. Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:50, 2 August 2021 (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. Momentum seems to have gathered behind the keep view. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marchande[edit]

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

This unreferenced article was tagged for PROD few months ago by User:Rusf10 with "Does not pass WP:V". It was then deprodded by User:DGG with "First check for sources; then, only if not found, nominate for deletion at AfD.". Since Rusf10 didn't follow up on this, I did, but I failed to find any SIGCOV of this topic. It's not a hoax, but it does not appear to be notable, and what we have at present is an unreferenced WP:DICTDEF. Note there is no fr:Marchande either. If anyone can find any WP:SIGCOV, please share, otherwise this has to go. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just want to point out that Marchande is a feminine noun and that you can probably find it here on Wikipedia by using the masculine form of Marchand which simply means Merchant. The context of the article is Louisiana and New Orleans history and a quick search of Google books reveals dozens of potential sources. You could probably make a good argument that the word Marchande took on a slightly different meaning in Louisiana French.^[1] ^[2]^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] ^[8] ^[9] DavidDelaune (talk) 07:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- DavidDelaune, Thank you for pointing out the 'e', but I still don't see any WP:SIGCOV, regardless of whether we look for the feminine or masculine version of the word? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Grace Elizabeth King (1895). New Orleans; the Place and the People,. Macmillan and Company. pp. 264–.
^ Abraham Oakey Hall (1851). The Manhattaner in New Orleans: Or, Phases of "Crescent City" Life. J. C. Morgan. pp. 70–.
^ Scott S. Ellis (3 October 2018). The Faubourg Marigny of New Orleans: A History. LSU Press. pp. 149–. ISBN 978-0-8071-7005-2.
^ Stephen J. Ochs (21 March 2006). A Black Patriot and a White Priest: André Cailloux and Claude Paschal Maistre in Civil War New Orleans. LSU Press. pp. 35–. ISBN 978-0-8071-3157-2.
^ Walter Stern (4 May 2018). Race and Education in New Orleans: Creating the Segregated City, 1764-1960. LSU Press. pp. 18–. ISBN 978-0-8071-6919-3.
^ Eliza Ripley (1912). Social Life in Old New Orleans: Being Recollections of My Girlhood. D. Appleton. pp. 25–. ISBN 978-0-598-42411-2.
^ Col. James R. Creecy (1860). Scenes in the South and Other Miscellaneous Pieces. pp. 39–.
^ Shirley Elizabeth Thompson; Thompson (2009). Exiles at Home: The Struggle to Become American in Creole New Orleans. Harvard University Press. pp. 196–. ISBN 978-0-674-02351-2.
^ Sherita L. Johnson (11 September 2009). Black Women in New South Literature and Culture. Routledge. pp. 84–. ISBN 978-1-135-24445-3.

Comment - I'm currently doing some work to address some of the issues in the article. It should be pointed out that while marchande might be a feminine noun (and can be seen used in French-language Louisianan legislation), the cultural phenomenon dealt with by this article would more typically be referred to as la marchande by Creole people. This specificity makes it difficult to differentiate between "merchant", "female merchant" and "this-particular-type-of-female-merchant-specific-to-this-location-at-this-time" (which is what the article is about). The specificity of this phenomenon also means it is unlikely to be found in French Wikipedia (being French-language in vernacular but culturally Louisianan and Creole). St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - okay, I have completed some work to refocus the article and add some sources. Without someone who can sift through some Creole-French sources (if they exist), it probably won't get much bigger. I can certainly understand this nomination by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus; it makes perfect sense for an article that is little more than a dictionary definition. But I think it has moved beyond a dictionary definition and now more accurately describes this particular cultural phenomenon. Given the initial lack of clarity, it may be worth procedurally closing this AfD in favour of a second AfD that discusses the merits (and notability, or not) of the subject as it is now defined. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Stalwart111 I do appreciate your efforts. Were you able to find any source that discusses this in depth? The article still misses citations for definition of the concept, and the reliance on 1860 work for bulk of references (and content, what little we have) is not ideal. Still, it would be a shame to remove this in its entirety now that we can see a glimmer of hope. What do you think about a merger and redirect to History of slavery in Louisiana? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still working through other sources. There isn't a lot (in English) that discusses the concept in detail, for obvious reasons. While it is true that slaves and former slaves became la marchande I couldn't find anything to confirm this was exclusively the case. More accurately, they were typically black Creole women, and a significant portion of black Creole women were slaves or former slaves, not all. But I don't think redirecting a title about a concept not specifically about slavery to an article specifically about slavery is a good outcome. I would rather see it kept and improved (and I believe it can be), or sent to draft space. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this can be improved and rescued, of course this would be the best outcome. Unfortunately sometimes interesting topics like these have not yet been researched. That said, in general, race and slavery topics in US are quite well researched, so if we are not finding much about this it doesn't bode well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the improvements to the article and the sources brought to the discussion by Stalwart111. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am sorry but where is the significant coverage which is required by our notability policy? See WP:SIGCOV - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep although I think it might be better to Merge this article into a new section within the History of slavery in Louisiana article. DavidDelaune (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - This is an interesting one. Best source I found here.^[1] A passing but contextually-appropriate mention here.^[2] Term is used again here in the mid-1840s.^[3] Term used here referring circa 1800.^[4] Here is marchande discussed as a legal designation for merchants in Lousiana, presumably before the the word became used in the sense this article describes.^[5] Note: no discussion of marchandes in the "Beyond Bondage" book discussed in the cited thesis, in case anyone else was tempted. I'll note that I found other search engines I tried to be useless here, I didn't find anything at all relevant until I looked at JSTOR. User:Stalwart111 may be better positioned to evaluate the utility of the sources I found. In sum, I'm convinced the subject of the article exists and is notable (to be at least name-checked in a dozen historical academic sources), but I am a bit concerned about WP:NOTDIC and the lack of depth on the term itself in the sources (such that the subject may not meet WP:GNG; unclear if the coverage in the discussed sources should be considered "in-depth"). I would probably favor a Merge, perhaps to History of slavery in Louisiana as previously suggested, but really this topic is getting at a women's labor history topic; if an appropriate existing article to merge to exists, I don't know the title. Suriname0 (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Out of order edit to add useful ref.^[6] Suriname0 (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All things considered, this is a great topic for a grad student looking for a dissertation that can be turned into papers/books in those fields. I still think it's sadly WP:TOOSOON for it to be a stand-alone Wikipedia article, given we are still dealing with a DICTFEF and our sourcing is heavily WP:PRIMARY. Let's keep WP:NOR in mind. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it's a bit of an exaggeration to say most of the sources are primary; I would be concerned if we were pulling the term from 18th and 19th century sources directly, but all of the sources I looked at are secondary historical coverage. I don't think it's "original research" to say that this was a labor phenomenon that existed in Louisiana, since that's what the sources say! My only real concern is depth of coverage, and as mentioned elsewhere I do think the additional sources uncovered are probably enough. Suriname0 (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ “Big Businesswoman” Eulalie Mandeville and the World of Female Free Black Entrepreneurs in Antebellum New Orleans, By this time, Mandeville also had many marchandes (sales-women) working for her. The court's witnesses stressed the number of these women, suggesting that it was quite unusual for a female free Black vendor to have so many of them selling in the streets. .... As Latrobe noticed, it was not the fashion for Creole ladies to go out in the streets to do their shopping. Thus, many of the marchandes provided a door-to-door service as well as selling in the market. He wrote: 'Women, chiefly black women, are met carrying baskets upon their heads and calling at the doors of houses. These baskets contain assortments of dry goods, sometimes, to appearance, to a considerable amount.' However, this was probably more applicable to the selling habits of Mandeville's marchandes. A few additional brief mentions of the role of marchandes in this woman's business.
^ Yorùbá Influences on Haitian Vodou and New Orleans Voodoo, However, the sheer demographic numbers of enslaved Africans in Louisiana are convincing in this context. They reveal that Louisiana, unlike Cuba and Haiti, received hardly any enslaved Yoruba or Dahomeyans (Hall, 1992). New Orleans's African population was Kongo dominated with a strong affinity with the spirits of the dead. Nago people arrived only during the Spanish colonial rule in a significant number, many of whom were females specifically "imported" to run the city's markets as vendeuses or marchandes (market women).
^ Sexual Labor in the Space Between Slavery and Freedom, But the story was more complex than a simple situation of long-term sexual liaison between two people. Lacaze was a peddler by trade, and he had officially purchased Carmélite as a marchande, a merchant woman, who would take care of his business affairs while he was away. He had, as the law prescribed, "put his slave in a shop" in his stead while he traveled to France. In this arrangement, Carmélite traded goods from a room in the Burgundy street house during his absence...
^ Paper Thin: Freedom and Re-enslavement in the Diaspora of the Haitian Revolution, Adelaide had left his household by 1801 to become a marchande (woman trader) in the town of Port de Paix, Saint-Domingue.
^ "A Baser Commerce": Retailing, Class, and Gender in French Colonial New Orleans, Marie Catherine Baudreau, Widow Gervais, was never once, in life or death, granted the designation of marchande. This title was only applied to a handful of female merchants in Louisiana from the early 1760s onward.
^ DuPlessis, Robert, What did Slaves Wear? Textile Regimes in the French Caribbean, Marketing was a long-standing slave activity. It is mentioned in decrees of 1664 and 1677 (Louis-Élie Moreau de Saint-Méry, Loix et constitutions, op. cit., vol. I, p. 120-21, 306-307), and the Code Noir, Art. XIX and XXIX, elaborated on these, seeking to regulate slave retailing, including settlement of debts. Typically, slave retailing was carried out on a master's orders or at least with his permission as embodied in a signed pass (cf. Art. XIX: « permission expresse de leurs maîtres par un billet ou par des marques connues »), but the Code foresaw slave selling even « en cas que leurs maîtres n'aient donné aucun ordre et ne les aient point préposés » (Art. XXIX). Many advertisements in Affiches Américaines boasted that a slave offered for sale was a « marchand » or « marchande », indicating that marketing skills were considered a valuable attribute among the enslaved. Cf. Affiches Américaines, 20 May 1767, p. 160: « Une Négresse, nommée Louison, très-bonne marchande… Cette Négresse a vendu des marchandises en pacotille, pendant toute la guerre & depuis la paix, tant dans la Plaine du Cap, que dans celle de l'Artibonite ».

That's a good summation, and is ultimately where I got to also. As above, I don't think redirecting a title about a concept not specifically about slavery to an article specifically about slavery is a good outcome. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I left a note [50] on Women in Red, since I know there's folks there who may help with uncovering and evaluating sources. Suriname0 (talk) 05:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think as it stands the article passes, but like others I do not think putting a redirect to an article about slavery is appropriate. Lajmmoore (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As it stands, the article is incorrectly drafted with major grammatical errors which would startle French speakers. One easy way of correcting the problem would be to change the title of the article to the plural "Marchandes" (or perhaps even "Les marchandes") and use the plural form in the article itself. I suggest this as the group people concerned are invariably referred to in the plural. I would be happy to make the move and improve the article along these lines but perhaps it is better to wait until it has been decided whether the article should be kept or not. See also [51] which provides statistics.--Ipigott (talk) 08:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above, the article references a phenomenon specific to Louisiana Creole culture and the difference in French linguistics is explained in the first reference (Albert Valdman's History, Society and Variation). He specifically gives la marchande as an example of non-gendered Creole French that defies normal French language conventions. So no, I don't believe a move would be appropriate without taking that into consideration. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that the pdf you link seems like a great source, and I have no trouble recommending Keep now. I agree with Stalwart about the proposed name change. Suriname0 (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ipigott, I believe I have fixed the grammar as explained on the article talk page. I hope you will be able to improve the article further. TSventon (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think that the sources found so far establish notability. TSventon (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the sources found during this AfD bring it up over notability requirements. -Yupik (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as TOOSOON. --KonsTomasz (talk) 08:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as sources are enough for notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:01, 9 August 2021 (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. Notwithstanding the concern raised about whether the grouped nominations was the best way to proceed, the consensus in this one (and previous ones) seems clear. RL0919 (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cayman Islands at major beauty pageants[edit]

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

Additional articles:

On 31 July Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belize at major beauty pageants closed as delete as a non notable list. This list was part of a series of articles about nations at major beauty pageants. Since these are, in my opinion, exactly the same notability wise I'm nominating all 146 articles that are part of that series (see Category:Nations at beauty pageants) for deletion in sets of 10 with a set per day to avoid overloading AFD with these articles. (see User:Asartea/Pageants AFD for a full list of AFD's) -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 04:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 04:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 04:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 04:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 04:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Democratic Republic of the Congo-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 04:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 04:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 04:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 04:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 04:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 04:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Costa Rica-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 04:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 04:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with the nominator (in terms of notability) but I query whether this is the right way to go about it. 146 articles in groups of ten means 15 AfDs (right?) and they all require consensus to go the same way... not just in terms of that group of 10, but in terms of the group of 15 AfDs. Otherwise, one going against the trend is reason to disregard consensus at each of the others for fear of missing a bloc of 10 from a group of 146 similar articles, or retaining 10 and deleting the other 136. The fact that this can only be raised AfD-by-AfD (which I won't do) is symptomatic of the issue. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, all the remaining articles should just be done in one AfD. And you're also going rapid-fire on this. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest? I'm open to an alternative way of doing this. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 05:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ANI? This is such a huge effort that it would likely require multiple admins to close and manage the deletions. That sort of team effort is something that is probably worth raising in a forum where you're guaranteed multiple admin eyes. Again, I endorse the effort itself. I agree with what you're suggesting. But we probably need a broader community contribution to get it done. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per precedent. WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection information with no notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. As for the procedural questions, I am personally in favor of the way Asartea is going about this (i.e. batch by batch), since going to ANI/AN is going to create a gigantic mess of biblical proportions before anything substantial gets done. However Asartea, feel free to let me know if I can be useful in this process, including by preparing the ANI/AN report. JBchrch talk 10:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all More lists we do not need.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These lists are superflous.TH1980 (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the above justification. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 04:54, 9 August 2021 (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 John Wick (game designer)#The Wicked Dead Brewing Company. RL0919 (talk) 05:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wicked Dead Brewing Company[edit]

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

Non-notable defunct company with no real sources. Google searches bring up wiki mirrors and other companies. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 04:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 04:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 04:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources are found, otherwise merge to John Wick (game designer) per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John Wick (game designer)#The Wicked Dead Brewing Company: The topic is nearly as well covered there. Nearly identical topic. Second involved designer is mentioned. Any content an editor might want to preserve from this article can be added there. —¿philoserf? (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John Wick (game designer)#The Wicked Dead Brewing Company - It was short lived, and does not appear to have actually gained much in the way of coverage in reliable sources. Its already covered completely on the main article for its one notable founder, and the lack of sources shows that a WP:SPLIT would not be needed here. Since pretty much all of the information, including the one secondary source in this article, is already present on the main John Wick (game designer)#The Wicked Dead Brewing Company, there is not really a need to merge. Rorshacma (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no issue with a redirect as discussed above. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 17:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cocked Hat, Delaware[edit]

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

Well, it turns out that what Durham and Gudde are to California, Delaware Place Names, a 1966 USGS/CGS report, is to the first state. And that includes occasionally copying items directly into GNIS apparently without actually looking at the map, or in this case, even reading the entry carefully. For there isn't anything now, nor ever was, at the location given for Cocked Hat, and the place names report describes it as a locality, not a settlement or village or any of the numerous other terms that might properly translate to "populated place" in GNIS terms. And once again, I can't find anything else that says anything about it. Mangoe (talk) 03:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can only find passing mentions. Completely unidentifiable. Hog Farm _Talk 04:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, Agree with Hog Farm only passing mentions. Hypogaearoots (talk) 06:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rai Marchán[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Article about an individual who has not played any senior matches at a professional level. Simione001 (talk) 03:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete I don't know if there was some hype about this player when he played youth football for some of the top Spanish clubs, but doesn't appear to have done much else. Govvy (talk) 10:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarksons Crossroads, Delaware[edit]

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

For some reason, a bunch of spots like this one acquired names in the mid-1950s after being unnamed crossroads for decades earlier. And once again I have no information on this place, and the various maps and aerials show nothing at this corner until the usual sprinkle of houses appears late in the last century. It appears to be, exactly, a crossroads, the origin of its name obscure. Mangoe (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of the crossroads in Delaware Whaleys Crossroads, Delaware

Springfield Crossroads, Delaware Pusey Crossroads, Delaware McDonalds Crossroads, Delaware Knowles Crossroads, Delaware Jefferson Crossroads, Delaware Hearns Crossroads, Delaware Gum Crossroads, Delaware Coverdale Crossroads, Delaware Anderson Crossroads, Delaware Adams Crossroads, Delaware. No indication of notability or that they are even communities beyond a named intersection. No need to individually discuss such mass-production. Reywas92^Talk 14:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per Reywas. –dlthewave ☎ 22:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Psi Omega[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Back in 2011, this page survived an AfD, with arguments that, bluntly put, are embarrassingly bad (WP:GHITS and # of chapters), while the Delete arguments were based upon the article's (apparently ongoing since 2009) sourcing woes. I can't find any usable sources online (string: ["alpha psi omega" fraternity]); if any usable sources exist they are almost certainly in libraries I am not privy to. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 02:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. CodeLyoko^talk 02:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CodeLyoko^talk 02:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a simple review turns up Idaho State Journal and West Virginia Public Broadcasting are quick to find. The previous AFD doesn't look "embarrassingly bad" to me, but that's just a differing opinion. So I'm looking at a pass of WP:GNG and we can further add WP:IMPACT for the organization. I'll grant that sources need to be added and the article could stand a good re-write, but that is an editing issue and not a deletion issue. The subject is notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - I agree with Paulmcdonald. A review of newspapers and JSTOR sources shows extensive coverage of Alpha Psi Omega over the years: while these are not salacious or negative coverage of misdeeds that would be picked up broadly by the big media outlets, the organization has been extensively covered by campus newspapers and yearbooks for many decades across the country. The first reference I checked, in a cursory search, cites important American playwright Tennessee Williams as a notable member, among others, as the writer namedrops several luminaries while reviewing the annual work of just one of the chapters. There are hundreds of similar articles. I added two references; more could be added, sure, but the point is clear that the group is a stable, valuable campus asset with 551 active chapters. This is a ridiculous AfD motion. Jax MN (talk) 05:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Either then some editing issues I dont see any issues for notability and deletion. Hypogaearoots (talk) 06:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the first AfD for Alpha Psi Omega was done as a swatch of over 50 AfDs done within days which were viewed as so egregious that the person was banned from making any more AfDs.Naraht (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and for the search which the Proposer did, if you look in the article, Alpha Psi Omega made the choice to no longer be referred to as a Fraternity in 1997, so looking up them and Fraternity isn't likely to be the proper search.Naraht (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seyed Ebrahim Amerian[edit]

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

Non-notable Iranian film producer. nearlyevil 665 06:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 06:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What is the reason for deleting the article? Want more authentic articles? This person has more articles and all articles have direct and indirect references to the person and the subject. Please decide fairly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azim kami (talk • contribs) 09:28, July 19, 2021 (UTC)

Comment. The Persian-language references can be read using Google Translate at https://translate.google.com Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~

The article has powerful sources and most Iranians know this person and even has Wikipedia in Persian. Please vote for the article thanks.

Please only vote once. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rohandeep Singh[edit]

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

Doesn't qualify WP:GNG. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references to till date did not establish the notability of the subject. fails WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now the article is cleaned and verified with noteble media news link. The page should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:2189:d839:2fff:7b11:f398:9259 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to lack of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources.
Refs 1 (The Print), 3 (Telegraph), 6 (Hindustan Times), are clearly marked sponsored content which are not independent, hence does not satisfy the requirements of GNG.

Ref 5 (Bhaskar) is also a WP:SYNDICATED source with regurgitation of the same content.

Rest of the refs, 2 (Cinebuster), 4 (Glamsham) and 7 (Koimoi) are WP:NOTRS. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 01:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dejan Berić[edit]

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

BLP of a Serbian volunteer in the Donbas. I don’t see any real claim of notability in the text. He might be a GNG pass but they would depend on the sources cited being reliable and independent. I’m not familiar with any of them, but they look pretty suspect to me. Mccapra (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the article explains in rather great detail, the subject is rather notable (or should we say notorious?) as a foreign fighter in Russian, Ukrainian and Serbian media. I’m not familiar with any of them, but they look pretty suspect to me – a casual Google Translate could tell you that "slobodnaevropa.org" is Serbo-Croatian edition of Radio Free Europe, cited two times, at least one being a full piece about the subject. Two short pieces in Blic, the major Serbian news outlet, and a full interview in Ekspres are well-above the GNG bar; plus an assortment of Ukrainian and Russian sources. It's not the typical "barrel-scraping" for mentions, those are all extensive stories about him. No such user (talk) 08:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with @No such user there are extensive stories about him on authored news sites. Meets WP:GNG. FiddleheadLady (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per No such user. The subject of the article is a biography of a very prominent foreign fighter in the Donbas war. I also added a Politika (a Serbian newspaper of record) reference. There he is covered in depth, and this article alone would probably be enough for him to pass GNG. Edit: probably worth adding in response to the nominator's I don’t see any real claim of notability -- the Politika story explicitly establishes his notability by saying that the Serbian public learned about him after he apprehended another Serbian fighter in Donbas, and that he is reportedly "the best-known Serbian fighter" there. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I couldn't find anything suspicious. The sources mention both sides of the conflict. I agree with No such user. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2021 (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. Low participation and no agreement after two relists. RL0919 (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Bruel[edit]

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

This article feels like a bit of a memorial page. The sources cited are pretty meagre and don’t amount to in depth coverage. A search has found nothing stronger - mostly other individuals with the same name. I don’t think this passes WP:BASIC. Mccapra (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourcing does not support notability. A search did not find enough to bring it there either. --- Possibly ☎ 20:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recipient of six awards: Vincent Bruel#Prizes and legacy, Vincent Bruel#World records and six inline cites at Vincent Bruel#References are more than sufficient to establish notability. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coolperson177 (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seedfeeder[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was kept at the previous AfD six years ago but, frankly, we got it wrong. I saw it nominated for GAN so figured I'd send it back before someone spent the time doing a review.

At the time of the last AfD, I don't think there was yet a clear consensus that Gawker, Cracked, and Metro were unreliable, and didn't have WP:RSP as a handy link demonstrating as much.

Basically what we have is an article in an unreliable source (Gawker) about Seedfeeder and a bunch of churnalism and aggregation based on that Gawker article. The Artnet listicle did a lot of heavy lifting in the last AfD (more than any listicle should), and that too is just a single paragraph connected to the Gawker article.

I like it when Wikipedia culture makes it to the mainstream, and find Seedfeeder to be a really interesting case, but I'm just not seeing sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ changed later downthread I'm the person who nominated for GA, based off of a comment on the talk page that suggested at least in 2016 that at least one editor thought that the article was at least B class, and I figured 'eh it won't hurt anyone to nom it, it looks like it meets the criteria to me on a skim, it'll be fine'. Here's a source assess table from my personal opinion, because I'm very bad at explaning things simply.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:casualdejekyll
Der Standard	? Paywall, I think? I don't speak German and Google Translate isn't helping.	? See independence	? See independence	? Unknown
naTemat	~ The bottom of the article says that it's "adapted" from the Gawker article, which I'll get to soon. However, it looks like the entire thing was completely rewritten, and it looks like it's more like citing a source then straight up plagiarism. Someone who actually speaks Polish can clarify this, I bet.	? This is used as a source a lot more often on plwiki then here, but the site hosts "blogs" and "editorial content" (thank you google translate for these barely comprehensible terms). The editorial content appears to generally be considered reliable, but I might be wrong because again, language barrier. I can't tell if this article in specific is a blog or not, however.	The article is entirely about Seedfeeder	? Unknown
Gawker	? Confession time: I didn't bother to look into this because I knew Gawker would fail. Call me a lazy nerd all you want, I deserve it	Gawker is listed on WP:RSP as "Generally Unreliable" as far as consensus is concerned.	The article's content is entirely about Seedfeeder.	✘ No
Vice	There is no indication the article, article writer, or website are associated with Seedfeeder.	? Again from RSP, there is no consensus on the reliability of Vice publications.	Seedfeeder is the subject of one sentence, and it's a very cringey reference all things considered.	✘ No
Metro	The article is mostly copy-paste from Gawker.	RSP yet again, generally unreliable.	The article is short but entirely about Seedfeeder.	✘ No
Huffington Post	Depends a lot on the Gawker article with very little original commentary	Per RSP, generally reliable, not about politics or from a "Contributor".	Yep, all Seedfeeder	✘ No
Cracked	Finally, something that isn't parroting Gawker. Doesn't appear to be paid for either.	a Top Ten list that doesn't have ten and instead has six, but is essentially entirely opinion regardless. I'm sure RSP has something to say about Cracked, too. (Side note: I can't keep a straight face reading this. This has entertainment value despite its absolute lack of encyclopedic value.)	More about the art then the artist, but still.	✘ No
artnet	~ Was apparently written by someone who was involved in the writing of the Gawker article. Everything here is Gawker, my gosh. Anyway, other then that it looks like it's fine.	Appears to fact-check their work and has a large staff team, doesn't look self-published, I'm going to lean on "innocent until proven guilty" here.	~ Has one section about Seedfeeder.	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Even if naTemat and Der Standard end up evaluating as a Yes count, that's still a very weak Keep, and right now it looks more like Delete unless someone can find more RS, but I'm keeping as a Comment for now. casualdejekyll (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I confirm the result of the previous AfD, and agree with some of the criticism that Casualdejekyll raises. Sources which I recognize as establishing notability are Der Standard, Gawker, Artnet, and Cracked.com. For anyone who needs to confirm the Der Standard link, access the article through Internet Archive (linked in English Wikipedia's references on the article) and run it through a German to English translation service. It is original content about Seedfeeder. I hear the criticism that Gawker as a publication may be unreliable. I see Gawker as reliable in this case because its coverage here is an art review and matter of opinion, and consequently not subject to any reliability assessment. I recognize the criticism that many cited sources are responses to the Gawker paper and may not contribute to GNG, but I still accept the Gawker source as solid original content. Artnews is an appropriate source for recognize important contemporary artists, and the paragraph and its context of identifying important art of the time contributes to GNG. Finally cracked.com, juvenile and sensational though it is, is a major publication representing a large demographic of readers seeking mildly weird content, and is an appropriate venue for publishing what needs to be said about odd sex art in Wikipedia. To pass GNG the most generous interpretation is that we only need two sources with two perspectives. These cited sources demonstrate that the subject of this article meets that low standard. The Polish language article, naTemat, also contains original content and interpretations, but it was a response to the Gawker article also. I favor counting this third-language source as yet another point toward meeting GNG, but I hear the criticism about Gawker being the source of too much here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I was originally not going to !vote, but now that you've clarified Der Standard and naTemat enough for me, I'm thinking this is a Keep. casualdejekyll (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I would just point back to the large, well-attended discussions/RfCs resulting in Gawker and Cracked.com being considered generally unreliable. Insofar as notability needs to be based on reliable sources, that's a big issue. Also, since I'm here, I'll add that when all of the coverage of a subject is based on a single article, it's also a WP:SUSTAINED issue. We need coverage over time. I think if this were a flash-in-the-pan YouTube video, meme, etc. (which gets similar bursts of coverage, often sparked by a single article) rather than a beloved eccentric bit of wikipedia lore, we wouldn't see as much of an effort to keep. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: I agree with the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources / WP:RSP that the sources there lack appropriate fact checking in news journalism, but I disagree or dispute that those sources are inappropriate for giving opinions in their own subject matter domain. Not all journalism requires fact checking, such as art reviews, authors stating their own opinions, or the positions of the demographic which the magazine publishes with the consensus of its readership. The expertise of cracked is identifying weird stuff on the Internet and the position they take is that the images are hilarious and that they make sex look like an airplane safety pamphlet. I feel this evaluation is entirely in the domain of that publication, and the fitting nature of their review combined with the high readership of that publication makes me count that website as a reliable source for this case. With Gawker I feel similarly; they share the opinion that Seedfeeder is Wikipedia's greatest sex illustrator. There is no real way to fact check their opinion, but they do stake their editorial reputation on publishing reviews like this and Gawker was a major publication with many staff. I do not think we should put extra weight on Gawker for this reason, but it happens that on the board of the Wikimedia Foundation they have the former Gawker CEO Raju Narisetti, and he is there because he is a media leader who ran a company which was respectable for its own kind of journalism. Gawker is a major publication and it has a context where citing it is justified.

As a general matter, I would join discussion at WP:RSP advocating for an exception for opinions, art reviews, and statements in the name of the publication itself. Again - I see opinions as different from statements of fact. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: my !vote from the 2015 AfD is not one I'll reaffirm as it relied on mostly heavily unreliable sources, but the four sources I found for it that were/are not in the article still seem relevant: [52][53][54][55]. — Bilorv (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit, hard for me to be objective about this one as an article contributor, but I'm looking at the sources (currently used as citations and otherwise) and previous deletion discussion and I'm still leaning keep. I don't expect my vote to carry much weight here and I'm curious to see what other editors think. I'm also curious to see how the Good article review goes, if the nomination gets picked up. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion esp. Blue Rasberry's reasoning. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2021 (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. Strong support for keep. While there is discussion on a merge, there have been significant objections to proposals for what the appropriate destination page would be. Namely, that it would have to be merged to a Star Trek-related page rather than a science-related page. If there is still appetite to merge this, it should go via the talk page. (non-admin closure) ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 01:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Class M planet[edit]

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

Similar articles on Star Trek planets and ways of classifying have been deleted before, with fairly clear consensus; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Star Trek planets (A–B) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek planet classification. I am concerned that this topic is still not notable enough in line with WP:GNG. The WP:PLOT element of WP:NOT also applies and was cited in previous discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment From the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek planet classification discussion: "The only one of these that I would expect to have any currency outside of Star Trek fandom itself is class M (Earthlike). I've seen that invoked occasionally in news items about exoplanets, for example." Artw (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would suggest a merge or redirect to goldilocks planet or goldilockas zone as the equiavlent non-fictional terminology, but there don't seem to be articles there. Circumstellar habitable zone or Planetary_habitability may be alternatives? Artw (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to circumstellar habitable zone or some such. I think this should have a place somewhere on Wikipedia, as, like Artw already stated, it sometimes appears outside of Star Trek itself and should be found by an interested reader. An example would be this. I have found two somewhat more extensive treatments in Star Trek 101: A Practical Guide to Who, What, Where, and Why, p. 21, and this National Geographic article, which I have now used as reference for the current article content. Technical, I guess those just beat the minium requirement of WP:GNG for a stand-alone article. Given that there is so little currently there, (and those sources may not fully solve WP:PLOT,) I think having it as part of an article treating the corresponding real-world concept would be best for the time being. Daranios (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the concept of the Class M planet is at least as important as devoting a page to every single Star Trek episode. It's an important part of the show. The idea that it's only interesting to people who enjoy Star Trek isn't quite accurate. The page is useful to people who want to learn about the show, such as new fans. I certainly could see the idea that there could be a broader page that includes other classes and perhaps other ways that they rate planets in Star Trek. SnappingTurtle (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to circumstellar habitable zone per Artw and Daranios, which I think is an excellent solution. This is essentially the fictional name for a real-world concept, and thus does not really warrant a separate article. However, as shown by sources like the National Geographic article above, even legitimate sources will use the term. So, redirecting to the appropriate real concept, and adding information explaining the origin of the term "Class M planet" and describing how the term is sometimes used outside of Star Trek would definitely be useful. Rorshacma (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Scholarlink seems to show that this concept has percolated into areas well outside fiction (e.g., gamification of teaching ecology to students), and I've not seen anyone address this level of spillover into "popular" academic usage for this specific term. Jclemens (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the classification deserves to be treated separately, in its own article, and be kept here. As others have pointed out above, the terminology has entered popular and some sort of scientific usage, which means that it goes beyond the show. On the other hand it is a fictional concept with a very clear fictional background – there's something very odd about including what's predominantly Star Trek terminology (I've glanced at a few books, papers and articles that use it, and academic works typically point out the origins of the classification when they use it) in Circumstellar habitable zone. It's also not quite the same thing, according to the definitions I've found: Gretchen Vogel, for example, writing in Science in 1999, defines it as " world with a thick atmosphere of oxygen and nitrogen, often close to a stable star and having fertile soil and a pleasant climate" (emphasis mine) – and often isn't always. I've expanded he article somewhat, adding a couple of sources. Defending it on WP:GNG grounds seems relatively easy, and it's far more than just WP:PLOT. /Julle (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Julle. Already well sourced and seems a topic which will likely be expanded shortly. The Star Trek universe is well represented on Wikipedia, and this new page fills a gap in Star Trek location pages that most editors didn't even know was there. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and then redirect to Circumstellar habitable zone where it will make a very nice start of 'in popular culture' section. None of the keep votes above shows a single source which is reliable, independent and contains WP:SIGCOV, nor is the current tiny substub giving the impression we have anything except passing mentions to work with. Yes, the term is occasionally used here and there, it doesn't make it notable, and if all we can say is that this term is a term for a real world concept as used in Star Trek, well, that's hardly enough to work with. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If a topic meets WP:GNC it is notable. This one easily does, as discussed in several comments above. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wat? What has Wikipedia:WikiProject Ghana/National Contest to do with notability? Articles have to meet WP:GNG, not WP:GNC, the difference of a letter between a key policy and niche and impactless WikiProject page is pretty crucial. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per Piotrus and others, to circumstellar habitable zone - seems like a good compromise._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a compromise, this stand-alone page meets GNC. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Ideally, this article and its contents (as well as a lot of minor, ancillary in-universe elements not widely discussed outside of Trekkie fandom) should be part of a broader Universe of Star Trek or List of Star Trek planets and moons article, which shockingly do not exist. That said, other editors have made convincing arguments per Wikipedia's guidelines that it is a notable concept, and in the absence of a suitable merge target, there's no compelling reason to delete or redirect this article. Haleth (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there was a List of Star Trek planets, but it got deleted for non-notability. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Star Trek planets (A–B)), etc. It could probably be recreated as one list with only the planets that are reliably sourced because the previous list had everything and the kitchen sink. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this term has entered popular usage outside of fiction.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or keep? Consensus is leaning away from delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 01:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested previously. There isn't really enough there for a stand-alone article, and it would make a nice subsection in circumstellar habitable zone with some removal of Star Trek content and addition of its use outside of that universe. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment reads like arguments for a Keep without the Keep. By keeping the Star Trek content and continuing to add usages outside that context shows that the term is accepted and notable, and the present stand-alone page is appropriate. For it to be trimmed of Star Trek material and even considered as a good subsection of chz shows, again, that it has the notability as a stand alone to remain. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My comment is an argument for merging while de-emphasizing the Star Trek content and emphasizing what matters most after the merge: the term's use outside of Star Trek. Simply merging the content as is would not be acceptable because there would be insufficient context for that content to be in circumstellar habitable zone. If anyone is arguing to merge the content unchanged, then I'd prefer to delete it entirely. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any use of the term outside of Star Trek shows its notability in society, and, since it actually is a common term in Star Trek, keeping the stand-alone page remains a much better option than removing all of the Star Trek material and merging it somewhere. That's what I meant. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mildly alarmed about merging. As a long-term star-trek fan, I know how much fan-stuff star-trek fans can produce. Also, because of the genuinely clever way star-trek is written, it sounds convincingly scientific, moving seamlessly from accurate situations (such as circumstellar habitable zones) into pure dilithium-crystal technobabble. If we merge a star-trek page into a real-science page, there is a strong risk that we'll end up with an article that can't decide whether it's science or science-fiction. Elemimele (talk) 08:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and definitely Not Merge per Elemimele's reasoning. The concept of "Class M Planet" is an important concept in the science-fictional world of Star Trek, but does seem to have spread into more general use as a "pleasantly habitable planet". However, as Elemimele has pointed out, the definition of "Class M" doesn't correspond to any more rigorous scientific classification, so it would be unwise to merge into a real-world scientific equivalent page. RomanSpa (talk) 09:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely don't merge to some article discussing actual science. Neutral on whether or not to merge to some other Star Trek related article (lack necessary expertise to know where). Let's not mix science fiction up with science fact. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:11, 3 August 2021 (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 01:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Breathful[edit]

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage from independent sources per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 00:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has been tagged for lacking sources since 2015. I've conducted a search for reviews or other relevant media coverage which returned lots of entries unreliable websites but nothing relevant for our purposes. WP:GNG and WP:NFO. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:36, 5 August 2021 (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.

[1] Uwechue, Raph; Limited, Africa Books (1991). Makers of Modern Africa. 248: Africa Journal Limited.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)

[2] Adeogun, Segun (1991). Who is who in Kwara State?. Segun Adeogun. pp. 100–101.

[3] Ihonde, Moses O. (2004). First Call: An Account of the Gowon Years. Diamond Publications Limited. p. 153. ISBN 978-978-2938-25-1.

[King1895-4] Grace Elizabeth King (1895). New Orleans; the Place and the People,. Macmillan and Company. pp. 264–.

[Hall1851-5] Abraham Oakey Hall (1851). The Manhattaner in New Orleans: Or, Phases of "Crescent City" Life. J. C. Morgan. pp. 70–.

[Ellis2018-6] Scott S. Ellis (3 October 2018). The Faubourg Marigny of New Orleans: A History. LSU Press. pp. 149–. ISBN 978-0-8071-7005-2.

[Ochs2006-7] Stephen J. Ochs (21 March 2006). A Black Patriot and a White Priest: André Cailloux and Claude Paschal Maistre in Civil War New Orleans. LSU Press. pp. 35–. ISBN 978-0-8071-3157-2.

[Stern2018-8] Walter Stern (4 May 2018). Race and Education in New Orleans: Creating the Segregated City, 1764-1960. LSU Press. pp. 18–. ISBN 978-0-8071-6919-3.

[Ripley1912-9] Eliza Ripley (1912). Social Life in Old New Orleans: Being Recollections of My Girlhood. D. Appleton. pp. 25–. ISBN 978-0-598-42411-2.

[Creecy1860-10] Col. James R. Creecy (1860). Scenes in the South and Other Miscellaneous Pieces. pp. 39–.

[ThompsonThompson2009-11] Shirley Elizabeth Thompson; Thompson (2009). Exiles at Home: The Struggle to Become American in Creole New Orleans. Harvard University Press. pp. 196–. ISBN 978-0-674-02351-2.

[Johnson2009-12] Sherita L. Johnson (11 September 2009). Black Women in New South Literature and Culture. Routledge. pp. 84–. ISBN 978-1-135-24445-3.

[13] “Big Businesswoman” Eulalie Mandeville and the World of Female Free Black Entrepreneurs in Antebellum New Orleans, By this time, Mandeville also had many marchandes (sales-women) working for her. The court's witnesses stressed the number of these women, suggesting that it was quite unusual for a female free Black vendor to have so many of them selling in the streets. .... As Latrobe noticed, it was not the fashion for Creole ladies to go out in the streets to do their shopping. Thus, many of the marchandes provided a door-to-door service as well as selling in the market. He wrote: 'Women, chiefly black women, are met carrying baskets upon their heads and calling at the doors of houses. These baskets contain assortments of dry goods, sometimes, to appearance, to a considerable amount.' However, this was probably more applicable to the selling habits of Mandeville's marchandes. A few additional brief mentions of the role of marchandes in this woman's business.

[14] Yorùbá Influences on Haitian Vodou and New Orleans Voodoo, However, the sheer demographic numbers of enslaved Africans in Louisiana are convincing in this context. They reveal that Louisiana, unlike Cuba and Haiti, received hardly any enslaved Yoruba or Dahomeyans (Hall, 1992). New Orleans's African population was Kongo dominated with a strong affinity with the spirits of the dead. Nago people arrived only during the Spanish colonial rule in a significant number, many of whom were females specifically "imported" to run the city's markets as vendeuses or marchandes (market women).

[15] Sexual Labor in the Space Between Slavery and Freedom, But the story was more complex than a simple situation of long-term sexual liaison between two people. Lacaze was a peddler by trade, and he had officially purchased Carmélite as a marchande, a merchant woman, who would take care of his business affairs while he was away. He had, as the law prescribed, "put his slave in a shop" in his stead while he traveled to France. In this arrangement, Carmélite traded goods from a room in the Burgundy street house during his absence...

[16] Paper Thin: Freedom and Re-enslavement in the Diaspora of the Haitian Revolution, Adelaide had left his household by 1801 to become a marchande (woman trader) in the town of Port de Paix, Saint-Domingue.

[17] "A Baser Commerce": Retailing, Class, and Gender in French Colonial New Orleans, Marie Catherine Baudreau, Widow Gervais, was never once, in life or death, granted the designation of marchande. This title was only applied to a handful of female merchants in Louisiana from the early 1760s onward.

[18] DuPlessis, Robert, What did Slaves Wear? Textile Regimes in the French Caribbean, Marketing was a long-standing slave activity. It is mentioned in decrees of 1664 and 1677 (Louis-Élie Moreau de Saint-Méry, Loix et constitutions, op. cit., vol. I, p. 120-21, 306-307), and the Code Noir, Art. XIX and XXIX, elaborated on these, seeking to regulate slave retailing, including settlement of debts. Typically, slave retailing was carried out on a master's orders or at least with his permission as embodied in a signed pass (cf. Art. XIX: « permission expresse de leurs maîtres par un billet ou par des marques connues »), but the Code foresaw slave selling even « en cas que leurs maîtres n'aient donné aucun ordre et ne les aient point préposés » (Art. XXIX). Many advertisements in Affiches Américaines boasted that a slave offered for sale was a « marchand » or « marchande », indicating that marketing skills were considered a valuable attribute among the enslaved. Cf. Affiches Américaines, 20 May 1767, p. 160: « Une Négresse, nommée Louison, très-bonne marchande… Cette Négresse a vendu des marchandises en pacotille, pendant toute la guerre & depuis la paix, tant dans la Plaine du Cap, que dans celle de l'Artibonite ».

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]