Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 23 August 25 >

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ardeshir Ghovanlopoor[edit]

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

not notable. it is look like CV article. Miha2020 (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Terminology within polyamory. As an aside, should that not be "Terminology of polyamory"? Sandstein 08:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiamory[edit]

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

This is a good example of what WP:Neologism is intended to prevent (and WP:DICDEF more generally). This also fails WP:SIGCOV. The sources cited are either clearly unreliable (wikis, a polyamory blog) or are marginal at best. The Allure article just gives a passing mention via a definition. Even if we counted "Kinkly.com" as an RS, which seems like a stretch, it certainly does not satisfy SIGCOV's requirement for multiple reliable sources. This term returns zero results on Google Scholar. Crossroads -talk- 23:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing has inexplicably gotten worse since I nominated it. It cites even more wikis now and WP:METRO is listed at RSP as generally unreliable. Crossroads -talk- 05:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with this. As for the sourcing, I thought I had improved it. As it is an obscure term, I am not surprised that reliable sources are difficult to find. I hope to put this behind me and be more conscientious with my citations in the future.
~~~ I'm User:Infinity128, thank you for coming to my TED talk. 07:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdol Khakhi[edit]

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

This WP:PTM case is a bit trickier. Several of the Carlossuarez46 place name dabs include two nearby place names differing only in the adjectives olya (عليا) and sofla (سفلي), which respectively mean upper and lower in Arabic; in this case, Abdol Khakhi-ye Olya and Abdol Khakhi-ye Sofla in Salas-e Babajani County. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Not sure why this was relisted, but there's clear consensus to keep this. (non-admin closure) —VersaceSpace 🌃 13:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ma Chak Shun[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "港隊後防百搭 馬澤純靠睇直播偷師" (in Chinese (Hong Kong)). Oriental Daily News. Retrieved 2022-08-18.
  • "【香港足夢・馬澤純】以足球讓父母自豪 快樂富足" (in Chinese). Sportsroad [zh]. Retrieved 2022-08-18.
Jumpytoo Talk 04:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Besides the sources Jumpytoo found, I found sources like [1] and [2], among many many other sources. She is clearly significant figure in Hong Kong women's and international football with an ongoing career. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 20. By the time I finish writing this, another 20 will probably be deleted. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A youtube video by an association the subject is associated too is a primary source. Regardless, this is an interview and is not independent of the subject. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 18:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KSAWikipedian (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corbu (band)[edit]

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

Although their work has some limited (key word being limited) coverage from The Guardian, EW and Interview Mag, not enough to satisfy WP:NBIO, WP:NBAND or WP:SIGCOV. A search suggests very little coverage available to help expand. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, devoted full articles in The Guardian, Entertainment Weekly and DIY magazine are significant coverage and pass criteria 1 of WP:NMUSIC which is essentially WP:GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the article needs some work, it shouldn't be deleted. Many of the references definitely pass WP:SIGCOV and appear to be reliable. I think it passes notability guidelines, as well. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 00:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —VersaceSpace 🌃 13:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creative problem-solving[edit]

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

Hopefully extra sources can be found to keep this article, but in the meantime... Please consider whether this article meets WP:OR and whether independent sources support that it is separately notable to problem solving. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edward de Bono's work was the original impetus for this article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 14:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abassia[edit]

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

Is this a valid DAB page, or just cobbling together one entry each of three similar words? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. I was going to suggest a redirect to Abbassia, figuring the other two aren't actually attested usages, just possible misspellings. But it does look like "Abassia", according to at least one (old and perhaps deprecated) source, may refer to Abkhazia (see Google Books). (I do see another usage, where the term refers to a prehistoric portion of the Nile, the gravel beds of which are located around present-day Abbassia: another Google Book.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is easily shown that this is a common 19th century synonym for both Abyssinia [3][4][5] and Abkhazia [6][7][8]. However, the page currently fails WP:DABRELATED as the term is mentioned on neither of those pages, leaving those entries open to being remvoved by a passing editor and the page turned into a redirect. SpinningSpark 17:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like both Keeps are Weak Keeps and I can't tell whether you are actually recommending a Redirect here so I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't think outdated 19th century usage justifies a redirect.--Madame Necker (talk) 06:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Spinningspark. Andre🚐 18:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Pal[edit]

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

No indication of meeting WP:AUTHOR or WP:NPROF. KSAWikipedian (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Femke (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment The only keep vote is unable to explain why GScholar is not picking up on his citations and no other support for keeping this article. KSAWikipedian (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment not sure how reliable these citations are if Google Scholar is not picking them up. Regular google search will search for mentions not citations. KSAWikipedian (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment lots for a Bippin Chandra Pal, two different people I think. Not much for this fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I was looking at results particularly for the title of his book 1983 book "Centre-state relations and cooperative federalism" [9]? --Jahaza (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Haryana. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Ercolino[edit]

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

WP:NFOOTY deprecated. Does not meet WP:GNG, no sources located on a search. De-PROD'd without edit summary and without improvement. On the talk page the user asserts "He played in Serie A, regarded as one of worlds top five leagues in the 1990s thus definitly has offline coverage." but as we should all bloody well know by now, appearing in a few games does not in fact strongly correlate to the existence of coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ab Bandan[edit]

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

All three items on this dab page are WP:PTM: Ab Bandan Kash, Ab Bandan Nonush, and Ab Bandan Sar. Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs) created a very large number of Iran placename dabs like this one, many containing WP:PTM; this is just a pilot for the alphabetically earliest one that I found. I have not attempted to verify any of the individual pages under this dab. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to World Justice Project. Sandstein 08:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World Justice Forum[edit]

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

There is nothing to indicate that the World Justice Forum (the specific events that the World Justice Project hosts) deserves a dedicated Wikipedia page. If there's anything that appears to be in any way important and reliably sourced, it can be placed in the World Justice Project article. This page was created by employees of the World Justice Project to advertise the organization more than ten years ago and no reliably sourced content has been added over that period. Thenightaway (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bulou Vasuturaga[edit]

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

Subject appears to fail WP:NRU, WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. All 5 references provided are trivial mentions of Vasuturaga and I was unable to find anything that could be considered as significant, detailed coverage of her in a WP:BEFORE search; only passing mentions in match reports and social media pages. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider the recent additions to article content by page creator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - all references are squad list mentions, still. Nothing even close to meeting GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Somerset County Cricket Club List A players. Sandstein 08:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Harding (cricketer)[edit]

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

No significant sources so fails WP:SPORTCRIT Spike 'em (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails GNG and SPORTCRIT. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really clear redirect to List of Somerset County Cricket Club List A players with an appropriate addition made at List of Somerset County Cricket Club players as well. It has been established as an ATD in cases such as this over a long period of time - going back years - that we would aim to redirect in cases like this. This preserves the page history, sources and attribution and, if Harding generates enough in depth coverage, means that the article can easily be developed without the friction of finding the sources we already have. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nickel Paul[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moron Phillip[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shanon Phillip[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stuck in the 80s[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Stuck in the 80s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:GNG. I'll give a run down of the current sources cited in the article and the previous AfD. The Tampa Bay Times produced the podcast and is therefore not WP:INDEPENDENT. The Orlando Sentinel reference explicitly cites a press release as their source of information and is largely made up of quotes from the host of the podcast. The BlabberMouth source is literally a republishing of the podcast's interview so it's clearly not independent and I don't see any evidence that the website is even a reliable source. The Hollywood in Toto source is an WP:INTERVIEW on what appears to be a blog and podcast run by Christian Toto (neither reliable nor independent). The second source from Tampa Bay Times is again not independent and this time is only a WP:TRIVIALMENTION. The TwinCities source is a trivial mention written by a random fan of the show. The Washington Times source is a trivial mention. It's also worth noting that there are still no sources verifying the awards and regardless of who has been interviewed on the show notability is not WP:INHERITED. The page has had a maintenance tag for tone since 2009 and another tag for citations needed since 2020. TipsyElephant (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kareem Joseph (footballer, born 1985)[edit]

Kareem Joseph (footballer, born 1985) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lancaster Joseph[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kimron Redhead[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond Noel[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lyndon Joseph[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrone John[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Table talk (cards)[edit]

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

The article has been tagged as unsourced for 14 years. The topic is poorly written and not notable enough for a separate article. If it is a genuine card game term - and as a researcher in this field I have yet to come across it in any game description or general glossary - it could just be added to our own glossary of card game terms as long as it can be properly cited. Bermicourt (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. I am familiar with this term in the context of tabletop games (rpgs, board games) but the meaning is somewhat different. I am not sure if the meaning I am familiar with is notable (perhaps, here's one source: [10]) but given the current state of the nominated article (no refereces at at all), I don't think there is anything to rescue and merge into the topic I mention, which doesn't exist anyway (table talk (games)?). I explicitly object to merge given said lack of references (this can be WP:OR or WP:HOAX). PS. There is also a concept of Table-talk Role Playing Game (TRPG) mentioned in some sources, popular in Japan ([11], [12]) that we don't have an article about, either.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am familiar with this term by this definition, but have no idea where one might find actual RS description, let alone commentary. Jclemens (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unrefed stub, agree with Piotrus, there's nothing to merge, as the article is entirely WP:OR with no content being refed at all, I wasn't able to find any more refs bases on a search. So I understand the WP:ATD rationales but disagree strongly given the lack of any refs at all, ping me if refs are found, thanks! VickKiang (talk) 09:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adita Milina[edit]

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

Every single reference is just a basic squad list mention and I found nothing better in searches. No evidence that Milina passes WP:GNG, WP:SPORTBASIC or indeed WP:NRU. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 20:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evivi Senikarivi[edit]

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

Best source I can find is a passing mention in Fiji Sun regarding winning a bronze medal in a children's sports event so clearly doesn't look to pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. 5 references in article are all trivial mentions. Can't find evidence of meeting WP:NRU either. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 20:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jenisa Ulengit[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 20:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I can only find squad list mentions which, at best, would be trivial coverage of the subject. I could not find even one example of Ulengit being addressed in depth in WP:RS. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Upaupa[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 20:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

R. Lee Wrights[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search turned up only routine campaign coverage, trivial coverage of the subject, WP:PRIMARY/non-WP:RS-compliant sources. No evidence of non-routine significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Sal2100 (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Aside from the nominator, who rebuked several extensive reasons to keep the article, the other delete comments were simple mentions of policy without explaining why they apply to this article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of compositions for viola: A to B[edit]

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

Including:

"Th[is] list includes works in which the viola is a featured instrument: viola solo, viola and piano, viola and orchestra, ensemble of violas, etc." Simply put, this page can contain pretty much any and every composition ever penned for the viola. This is not encyclopedic content. It's rather a indiscriminate database of pieces, and that is not what Wikipedia is for. This bloated, uncited list full of non-notable pieces serves few. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Lists. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The argument "This bloated, uncited list full of non-notable pieces serves few" is wrong. Each item lists composer, title, date, and usually publisher, which is plenty of information to constitute an academic citation. It serves violists and anyone interested in the viola, which is quite a significant number of people. I'm not aware of any other such list on the internet. Saying the list is "bloated" is just criticizing it for being extensive. Also, non-notability is not sufficient reason to delete a list. [[13]]: "Songs may be described in a discography or one of the many lists of songs." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fledermauskind (talk • contribs) 12:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's no other list on the internet then copy the information here and create another one on a site that's not designed to be an encyclopedia. It means little that each item has a composer, title, etc., because the formatting and validity of the list means nothing. This is a debate about whether or not such lists are within the realms of Wikipedia with such an infinite scope. And like I said earlier, serving violists means nothing too. Wikipedia would also not be accepting of guides on how to play a E natural scale on the instrument either. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. The number of musical compositions for this common orchestra instrument could be endless. Ajf773 (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all with extreme viola-nce per nom. It's not even a list of only notable, articled pieces. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have known these lists for most of my time (13 years, and I met them early, and I couldn't believe we didn't have something similar for cello, oboe, - you name it.) The viola is an underrated instrument, and used less in a solo function than most of the other orchestra instruments, and I'm with the underrated. I love to see the lists grow (on my watchlist), and have occasionally added myself. I am biased, but see no reason to deprive the few readers who cherish this overview from a rich detailed factual source of knowledge. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The viola is an underrated instrument means nothing. Promoting viola repertoire can be a wonderful addition as a prose-based page or as a section on the instrument's article. Unfortunately an eight page list is not something Wikipedia is here for. You're welcome to create a smaller list that only includes actual famous viola solos and concertos for which Wikipedia has pages for, or host the list on a website that's not Wikipedia. But Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of every viola piece written. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that by "promote" you mean mentioning the pieces that are already known, and have articles. The value of a list is to also have the others. I find list format much easier to understand than prose. Would you suggest to drop Bach's lost cantatas from the list of his cantatas just because nobody knows how thy sound? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because a composer's list of works has a clear and narrow scope. A list of every viola piece ever does not. And you can promote literature written for the instrument without only mentioning the already made articles (given that they are well cited as notable). Take a look at Vibraphone#Repertoire. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a look, and if I was looking for literature to perform on that instrument, I would be disappointed. - Please understand that I force myself to no more than two comments per discussion. Bach's scope is not narrow, take a look at BWV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but the list you mentioned has a narrow scope. And even the BWV has less entries and a more defined scope than "every viola piece ever". Your comparison is not the greatest. Wikipedia is not here to host lists for violist to discover music. There are thousands of sites and books that aren't encyclopedias foremost to achieve that. All your argument reduces to is "it's useful" which is not a policy based reason to keep it. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was project Classical music informed of this discussion, beyond the alerts? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lists do seem indiscriminate, but it would be a shame to lose this, too. At minimum, it may be worth thinking about transwiking to, say, wikibooks? Perhaps there's a way to divide it up further into types of compositions, and perhaps those smaller lists could more easily be backed up by RS to justify NLIST? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly don't believe that any lists of entire instruments' repertoire are needed, regardless of any potential usefulness. It's just not something Wikipedia is designed to do. For actual page navigation we have categories, such as those under Category:Compositions by instrumentation. Certainly there can be articles such as Piano Concerto or sections like Marimba#Concertos (still a work in progress) that can discuss particularly important pieces in prose. But large lists are really not necessary. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article has existed for around fifteen years, and any concerns about the suitability of the content for Wikipedia could—and presumably should—have been raised many years ago, particularly at the point when the page was created (or when the original page was subsequently split into multiple pages in 2008). If the article predates the establishment of the indiscriminate concept, then it should be grandfathered in. By now, these pages are entrenched in the research community, and no benefit can come from deleting them, while much harm will come if they are deleted. Gerda raises many relevant points related to the structure and organization of information, and the content on Wikipedia is arranged in a variety of formats to suit various purposes. Indeed, dynamic lists exist because list formats are helpful in many contexts. Comparing this article to other content on Wikipedia will always be imperfect, but as an example, the Willie Nelson Discography Singles page lists 156 solo singles, likely every one he released, of which 79 (more than half) never charted. Is this list indiscriminate? Why are so many non-notable singles on this list? Is this list only acceptable because it is “clear and narrow in scope,” even if the content is indiscriminate? (And while one might argue that Willie’s discography will eventually become finite, many recent artists seem to continue releasing material long after they have left the earth. His discography could truly become “endless” as well.) In another imperfect comparison, Wikipedia divides the various Hurricane Seasons by year (a logical arrangement) and then lists all of the systems for each year. Since tropical storms and depressions will result in “endless” lists of non-notable storms added over time, is including this information indiscriminate (even if it is packaged in a manner that you would seem to approve of)? Eight of the twenty-one systems in the 2021 Atlantic Hurricane System resulted in no damage and no deaths. In essence, they were non events, unlikely to be remembered by humanity. Why not remove them from the page; wouldn’t that “improve” it? One of the great strengths of Wikipedia is the flexibility it provides in formatting and presenting content in a manner that best suits the subject. That is what the creator and subsequent editors have done with this article, and I believe that future generations should be permitted to benefit from the article.Dbynog (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't really make any points towards keeping this page. Willie Nelson's single list will certainly not be endless, and it certainly won't number in the millions like "every piece written for viola". There is also no such thing as a grandfather clause on Wikipedia. Consensus changes, and with it, the pages. All hurricanes are usually considered notable. Every viola piece, including those by non-notable composers is not. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bloated listcruft. D4iNa4 (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Pure listcruft, which serves no conceivable useful purpose.--Smerus (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – This, and its companion pages for the other letters of the alphabet, would be impressive, and I'm sure useful to some readers, if only it complied with our rules on verifiability by being adequately cited. It is visited by a few readers every day, I see, and it would be a pity to deny them these pages, but I cannot support the continuance of pages that so consistently lack citations to reliable sources. I'd be against any move to delete the pages for now, instead inviting the main contributor to tell us what, if anything, s/he proposes to do to make sure all entries are adequately cited. Given a satisfactory reply to that, I'd vote to keep. – Tim riley talk 08:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Let's look at the specific Wikipedia policy for notability for lists, WP:LISTN: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." It is undisputable that "music composed for the viola" is a topic that has been discussed as a group by reliable sources. For example, Zeyringer, "Literature for the Viola"[1]. Could this list be improved? Sure, but that is not a valid reason for AfD. PianoDan (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then, say, would you also be okay with me making a list of every orchestral or chamber ensemble piece in existence. Those, like this, would number in the millions, but there is definitely substantial literature on the two. Heck, Siwe's book for percussion ensemble literature is also around 500 pages with tiny entries. Why not make a list of every percussion ensemble piece? The issue isn't that there's not a level of validity. It's that "every viola piece ever" passes the level of indiscriminate. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. This is an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:IINFO). Sandstein 06:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Zeyringer, Franz (1976). Literature for Viola. Verlag.
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) 20:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Fulywer[edit]

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

Non-notable ski mountaineer. Before search didn't bring up any third party sources to establish notability. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 19:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KSAWikipedian (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Novato Flatiron Building[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG. Searching confirms it exists and is just called the "Flatiron Building" in Novato, California. The are a few brief mentions in local Novato history sites that say no more than is in the article and repeat what is on the video used as the source in the article. Lack of in-depth coverage in multiple RS. MB 19:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Renamed Flatiron Building (Novato, California)

  • Keep - Found references in Daily Independent Journal (San Rafael, CA) 1958 1958 1974, as well as one in a book Page 258.Nweil (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "a church is having an event in the Flatiron building"
    • "a grand opening will be held for the church's thrift shop in the Flatiron building"
    • a photo with a caption repeating some of the basic facts in the article
    • a short paragraph in a Marin County travel/guidebook
    None of this is WP:SIGCOV MB 20:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was a historical reflection on it in the Sacramento Bee in 2015. Market opening article in 1918. The article can certainly be improved but it passes based on what I see.Nweil (talk) 23:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I looked for sources and not much. Those given above look ok, not great, but enough. Oaktree b (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE Renamed Flatiron Building (Novato, California) Djflem (talk) 06:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep satisfies GNG. Djflem (talk) 06:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has been updated and it complies with GNG now. Not to mention that it is a historical building, having been designated so by the City of Novato. AnonymousEditor95 (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This building is notable, and the sourcing is ample and proper.TH1980 (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As noted in the discussion, this article has all the hallmarks of a promotional autobiography and/or undeclared paid editing, which is why I am giving less weight to "keep" opinions such as "why such a biased attitude towards Lomtadze?" or "the most worthy and living people in Kazakhstan are our President and Lomtadze." In this light, the WP:NOTPROMO arguments for deletion are compelling. Because the subject is possibly notable, a recreation of the article is possible, but this should be done by established editors without a conflict of interest and the new article should be written in a neutral tone. Sandstein 08:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mikheil Lomtadze[edit]

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

Not a G4, but I don't see that factors have changed enough to change the results in the past AfD. Similar churnalism of an active businessman. Star Mississippi 13:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and also @MER-C, Espresso Addict, and Deb: involved at Mikhail Lomtadze who I inadvertently missed looking at AfD participants. Star Mississippi 13:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
fixing ping for @RoySmith as I accidentally pinged his doppelganger. And clearly should not have pinged the banned CreecregofLife. MOving too quickly before coffee this morning. Star Mississippi 21:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - at the moment, this is little more than a CV, created by someone with an undeclared COI (who has added so much promotional material to the article about the company that I've had to delete that as a G11). Deb (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Its more or less the same article as before, dumped mostly verbatim as a block from somewhere, with some updates to the references but it is the same kind of article, created by a UPE. It can't just appear from nowhere without some offline preparation. The references are mostly generated PR, the article fails WP:SIGCOV. No real WP:SECONDARY sources. scope_creepTalk 14:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You write that the article was prepared offline, but for me it is just a translation from Russian into English with the change of sources to English. I do not see anything reprehensible in this, but it explains why all versions of the articles about Lomtadze are similar to each other.Deviloper (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I said at the last AfD, this article (under a slightly different name) has already been deleted repeatedly and SALTed. And yet, the article keeps being re-created I suspect by undeclared paid editors. Ajgerim.batyrova created this article in a single edit and added WikiProject banners to the talk page immediately thereafter, which is not typical of newer editors. W?F refuses to spend money and chase down these rings of paid editors and I'm not clear if we're refusing this article to exist on principle. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good afternoon to all Wikipedians! I did not expect to be back on the discussion page of the article about Mikhail Lomtadze. Last time, I gave a sufficient number of arguments about the significance of his person in Kazakhstan and already in the entire post-Soviet space, because. he expands his business to Azerbaijan and Ukraine I was accused of allegedly being associated with this person and having a vested interest in creating the article. I retreated, firstly, because it is not true, and secondly, because I consider all these accusations to be unfounded. I am pleased that someone decided to write about Mikhail again, because he and his company are for our people the same pride as, for example, Gennady Golovkin or Timur Bekmambetov, but only in business. Even the President of Kazakhstan emphasizes the importance of the company at international meetings created by Mikhail. Not to mention the personal contribution and losses of Mikhail to the bloody events of January in Almaty. I still think that the article has a right to exist. His activity is confirmed by a huge number of references to various authoritative sources and independent articles. All articles were published at different times (months and years) and the story about him is collected bit by bit. And if he himself was interested in having an article about him on Wikipedia, then he would probably hire a team of professional authors, at least and at the most he would order a bunch of new articles in the media with the necessary information. It is also unclear to me why articles about other Kazakhstani businessmen published without observing any rules and regulations of Wikipedia hang with recommendations for improvements, but no one deletes them. Look at articles about Bulat Abilov or Margulan Seisembayev. In my humble opinion, these people really have nothing to do on wikipedia. In this regard, I have a question - why such a biased attitude towards Lomtadze? Why do respected experienced administrators not give specific recommendations for improvement?Deviloper (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You also filed a Deletion Review, which endorsed the close and there was already prior consensus that he was not notable, which is why this was disruptively created under an alternate spelling. I'm not sure why you're surprised to be back here. If others should be deleted, you're welcome to propose them. WP:OSE applies. Star Mississippi 16:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right and I’m very sorry that I made a mistake with WP:OSE Can I ping some authors and ask them to vote for the deletion or keeping and improving article? Or I need to put it on the talk page of an article?Deviloper (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as you leave a neutral note and have a good read at other pieces of WP:CANVASS, you can ping them (as I did you and the other participants above) but it might be easier to leave a note on the Talk to get the input of other editors who you may not know. You can ping the editors you do know from the Talk page as well. Star Mississippi 17:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Star Mississippi! Ill try to do my best Deviloper (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - likely undisclosed paid-for spam, probably yet another Wikibusines sock. MER-C 16:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Hello! In my little "career" on Wikipedia, this is the first time I've encountered a nomination for the removal of articles. Now I see that all my other works have also been sent to drafts. I am disappointed. When publishing my articles, I tried to follow all the rules of Wikipedia and look up to well-developed articles about personalities. I admit honestly that I took material from the Russian Wikipedia as a basis. I translated it and looked for references in English-language sources. If I found unique information, I added it. But a little. And it's not prohibited. In your takedown notice, you noted that you need to find news, newspapers, reference books , and scholars. If you follow these links, then independent sources come out. Please keep the article and I will study information further and suggest corrections. I will be grateful for your recommendations and advice - what I need to improve or redo. This is a good experience for creating new articles, because I'm interested.Ajgerim.batyrova (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The individual seems notable. Perhaps the outline can be changed to a more standard form, something like this: Education, Career, Awards & Honors, Organizations, etc.Shari Garland (talk) 04:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What is the subject meant to notable for? OK, he's rich. But the article doesn't even explain how he acquired his wealth. Maproom (talk) 06:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The absence of language versions does not inspire confidence, significance is not shown. Kazman322 (talk) 07:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kazman322: there are several language versions of the article that I have brought to the side language panel. I took the material from them to work on this version. If I made a mistake when forming an article, I would be grateful for help in finalizing it. I am sure that there are very responsive and kind members in the English wikipedia community. Ajgerim.batyrova (talk) 05:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took advantage of @Dimadick:'s [14] recommendation - optimized a large block of information about meetings with the president and drew attention to @Maproom:'s comment - supplemented the article with information about how wealth is acquired. I suggest not deleting the article, but making it an educational example for beginners like me or the author of an article, how to bring it in the English Wiki to the required format. I would be grateful if one of the admins took control under the revision and improvement of the material. Thanks in advance! Deviloper (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer be sure to check the discussion at Talk:Mikheil Lomtadze that @Deviloper: opened for any input that isn't subsequently posted here. There's some good input and I did drop a note asking them to weigh in here so their opinions were factored into the close. Star Mississippi 13:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete thank you for the ping. It's a well-sourced CV from what I see. Still not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Deviloper linked to this AfD at the Teahouse under the heading Your vote for keeping an article. Although he asks for "honest opinions" in the section, this could potentially be considered canvassing. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s a mistake with the title, you are right. Thank you for noticing this. I corrected it. I hope that the essence of my appeal was conveyed correctly. I would really like to get recommendations - what needs to be done and how to improve the article and in what form it could have a chance to exist.Deviloper (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deviloper: There's no chance for this to exist because you and your fellow undisclosed paid editors cannot host content here. It doesn't matter what you re-write or change. Please tell your client it's not happening. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is a incredible resource where every sentence needs to be confirmed. Nothing comes out of nowhere here. Which, unfortunately, cannot be said about your unfounded accusations. WP:NPA. I have been a member and patroller of the russian language Wikipedia for over 13 years. It was interesting for me to try my hand at the English Wikipedia, practice my English and share information about Kazakhstan, but here the rules are very different, and the desire to help and advise on how and what to improve is mostly absent. I'm really sorry. Deviloper (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hello to all participants of the discussion! First of all, I want to make clear that I am not the author of this article. I am brought to the discussion as the author of the last deleted translated article about Lomtadze. I am not a paid author, I sincerely like how this person makes the life of Kazakhstanis better. I edited a primitive translation of the article about Lomtadze from Russian. I suppose that it could appear as an improved article from the Kazakh Wikipedia. Apparently that's where the resume format came from. Although it may not be that important. I removed all unnecessary information, tried to rewrite it in prose, checked the sources and replaced many. I tried to find references exclusively in English, which correspond to WP:RELY I draw your attention to the fact that it did not take me much time, because there is a lot of information about him, starting from 2007. I sincerely believe that in this form the article has the right to exist. The article complies with all points of WP:GNG Before making a final decision, please check the changes. Thanks in advance Deviloper (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Oh wow! I came across this article while reading about medals and awards. To say that I am surprised by the removal of the article about Lomtadze is to say nothing! It should be kept for futher work! The most worthy and living people in Kazakhstan are our President and Lomtadze. Perfection is my second name (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is one of most notable entrepreneurs in Kazakhstan that confirmed for example by including to lists of Forbes and significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources in Kazakhstan both in Kazakh and Russian languages. --Mheidegger (talk) 07:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This isn't much more than a spammy CV supported by paid for press and generated PR. Given that this is the second AfD and concerns (I'd say rightfully so) regarding paid editing that the namespace might also need to be WP:SALTed. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I worked on the article, tried to rewrite it in prose, and also replaced most of the sources with English and independent ones, based on the WP: GNG, WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS. I am not a paid author, I sincerely like how this person makes the life of Kazakhstanis better. Of course, you are free to speculate, that is not my business. On the topic of this article, I stand by my earlier statement of Keep. As for me, for today the article meets the requirements of WP:BIO. I believe that the significance of the person and his contribution to the development of Kazakhstan has been proven. At the search request of Mikhail Lomtadze, we see that more than 35,000 publications made over the years are published, which indicates public interest in this person. In The Power of Trust: How Companies Build It, Lose It, Regain It by By Sandra J. Sucher, Shalene Gupta it is described Michael's leadership style in critical situations as an example to look up to. Please leave the article, I will try to refine it as independent facts are discovered and I think that many other authors will be interested in this, given the expansion of his business in Ukraine and Azerbaijan. Deviloper (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're only permitted to !vote once in the discussion @Deviloper. Please edit this or the one at 16:16 on 17 August to a comment. Star Mississippi 13:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to say keep but the article is waaaay too promotional, both in content and in language. So I would advise that it be marked as such and that it be heavily edited to include only the information that supports notability. Lamona (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is consensus that the subject does not appear notable at the moment. I see a very recent request for more time to work on this; it does not strike me as very reasonable to relist this for an indefinite amount of time when consensus has already formed, so I will instead delete, and provide a draftspace copy on request that can be worked on with no deadlines. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Upendra Mahato[edit]

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

This article about Upendra Mahato is an advert and does not meet WP:GNG. It lacks WP:SIGCOV (indepth coverage) Rath Butcher (talk) 10:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence of any attack. Maproom (talk) 06:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of the sources I can assess, only one is any good. The rest are likely churnalism, passing mentions, or churnalism mentions. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 05:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Little evidence that subject is notable. Maproom (talk) 06:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The first AfD ended up as Keep because the nominator was confirmed as a sock. Rath Butcher, the nominator of this second AfD is suspected of being a sock of the same editor (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nalbarian), but as of 18 August, evaluation in progress. Question is, does that "poison the well," given the weakness of references identified by Jéské Couriano? David notMD (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will rewrite the article. Give me a couple of days, please. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 08:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

E. J. André[edit]

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

Being just a guest appearance in popular films doesn't make him notable enough to meet WP:ACTOR. A quick Google search shows NY Times source only as an RS; no SIGCOV and doesn't meet WP:GNG either. Htanaungg (talk) 05:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, California, and Michigan. Htanaungg (talk) 05:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A familiar character actor with well over a hundred substantial speaking roles in theatrical films and episodes of TV series. There has also been a consensus in a number of previous deletion discussions that an obituary in The New York Times indicates notability sufficient to remain as subject of a Wikipedia entry. Also, "What links here" confirms that his name already has at least 20 links in various Wikipedia entries. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Roman Spinner Shouldn't even be any discussion about it... NYTimes doesn't focus on bit-players and extras! I've watched the entire Little House series & spinoff's, and when I saw Andre on Gunsmoke, he was immediately recognizable, let alone his appearance in Cecil B. DeMille's '56 Ten Commandments... <-- if those three alone aren't enough for Notability... ?? Evidently he was also "a prolific stage actor on and off Broadway" although I don't have access to those resources, or know enough about them to be qualified to make citations. I would ask that Users/Editors step up to expand that part of the page. But just from films/tv shows I've seen him in (besides those 3 above), He's Totally Notable. Instead of having a Discussion about whether he should be deleted into obscurity in the 21st Century, why don't you all go out and find some More 20th Century RS Citations??? (I've done MY part in getting his page started, along w/the NYTimes Citation, and by linking all the existing Wiki pages I could find which already had E.J. Andre listed in Cast/Credits, including Gunsmoke.) blah GreyElfGT (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The New York Times obituary is very short and lacks an author byline, and if that's the most significant single source, that's really not saying much towards notability (WP:GNG needs multiple sources with nontrivial coverage). The claim "He was also prolific stage actor on and off Broadway" appears to be made up (or was pilfered from unreliable Find a Grave), as his NY Times obit mentions neither "Broadway" nor "prolific", merely "He also wrote and directed productions for the Nine O'Clock Players, which performed for disabled children." For all we know this could be no more than putting on local plays at a hospital. He apparently has no entries in the Internet Broadway Database nor the Internet Off-Broadway Database. He does have many TV credits listed on IMDB and other databases, but the vast majority seem to be one-shot, single-episode appearances, not significant roles per WP:ENTERTAINER. Even his alleged "best known" role on Little House on the Prairie consists of two appearances as Uncle Jed, and if IMDB is considered complete or reliable (it's neither), he also played Zachariah, Matthew Simms, Amos Thoms, and St. Peter on the show: so, little more than a recurring extra. There may well be some more extensive contemporary newspaper or magazine coverage of his career, but I've yet to find any: the California Newspaper Collection is only giving passing mentions about productions he was involved with. Similarly, browsing the Internet Archive, his name appears mainly appears in credit listings or other trivial coverage, although the UCLA Daily Bruin in 1955 comparatively wrote a novel by calling him a "versatile actor" and "a veteran of many past UCLA productions." Unless more significant coverage can be found, a redirect or deletion is likely warranted. Not every character actor who verifiably dies automatically gets an encyclopedia article. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll remove the "prolific stage actor" bit until anyone can confirm it, but let's not assume it's not true...there was an Author Name for that source, even if that author didn't list his own references. Hopefully that'll help remove the "Article for deletion" template.... there's plenty of citations out there that can confirm his roles in the listed shows/movies (such as the one for the Lincoln Conspiracy, that I've added), so I'll leave those listed on the page for now. Yay? Nay? Huh? GreyElfGT (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    UPDATE: There're now FOUR Citations on the page listing his Name, birth/death date/place, and other Bio details, along with Film/TV cred's:
    • NY Times
    • Screen World
    • Western and Frontier Film and Television Credits 1903-1995
    • The Ultimate Directory of Silent and Sound Era Performers...
    I've never seen Dallas, but evidently he was a regular there, later in life, so he is known. Therefore, I've added that to the Lead line, next to Little House. I've also found a lot of other shows, with 2ndary RS Citations, that were NOT listed in the Bio's ref'd so far. I've added those as well.
    Now, does that satisfy Notability for you?
    On the "Nine O'Clock Players" bit, they do have their own site out in California, so anyone w/an interest in tracking down that work could do so to see if they send their players to NYC/Broadway... the bio didn't say WHERE the disabled children actually saw the shows, so don't assume it's just a dinky lil' old hospital somewhere in Obscurityvale. Anyway, I'll leave that to someone more knowledgeable to expand the article... if they would be so kind... ? I know more about Film/TV than NYC Broadway... on or off... even though I have been to an Off-Broadway show myself... good show too, btw :) GreyElfGT (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. New York Times obituaries establishes notability. He has sources out there [15], a Los Angeles Times article. He had also had his obituary in other types of newspapers, his role as Uncle Jed is mentioned in [16]. He had numerous appearances in notable tv shows and films. There is also this source that confirms his birth and death date [17]. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Definitely a recognizable character actor. 5Q5|✉ 11:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Marshall[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mark (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dwayne Leo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Ostapenco[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goce Petrovski[edit]

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

BLP sourced only to databases. This player appeared in lower Austrian leagues and in Macedonia.

I can find no significant coverage in searches online and in newspaper databases. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Schuster[edit]

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

Non-notable ski mountaineer; WP:BEFORE search didn't bring up any third party sources. NO medal record either, doesn't seem to come close to meeting WP:GNG. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 17:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Hog Farm Talk 18:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calhetinha[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, not enough information to make an article on it. Chagropango (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:GEOLAND - named features. As the noom says, not enough information out there to make an encyclopaedic article. Not notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Nasti[edit]

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

Not notable at all Dr Salvus 17:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Detlef Dahn[edit]

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

Did not win a medal and was eliminated in round two, so fails NSPORT BrigadierG (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the significant coverage in Märkische Oderzeitung to the article, in accordance with WP:SPORTCRIT #5. StAnselm (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. National champion in boxing and bronze medalist at European champs. Clearly notable. - Darwinek (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, these keep votes are in direct contravention of the new WP:NSPORTS, which explicitly disavows simple participation-based claims of notability. If there isn't significant prose coverage, we can't assume notability, period. Even if we were accepting such a thing, bronze medal in an amateur competition is hardly evidence that he is "clearly notable". I hope the closing admin regards these keep votes with the minimal weight they deserve. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are achievement based (i.e. winning something) rather than participation based. That's a crucial distinction. StAnselm (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, the article clearly passes WP:NBOXING. StAnselm (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And NBOXING clearly states that meeting those criteria means "significant coverage is likely to exist", not that the person is presumed notable. We literally just had an RfC about this. NSPORTS criteria no longer provide presumed notability, only that they spell out situations where editors feel that coverage is likely to exist. In this case, we have one regional article. That wouldn't be enough SIGCOV for a GNG pass for anyone else, and sportspeople no longer get a different standard. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And there is coverage that we can't put lay our hands on. The German wikipedia article lists Fachzeitschrift "Boxsport" 1962 bis 1970 and "Sport-Almanach", Sport-Verlag Berlin (Ost), 1966 bis 1970. With what we already have in the article, we can be satisfied that these offline German references are going to be enough for a GNG pass. StAnselm (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Without having reviewed them yourself, how can you assume that they are significant coverage? For all we know, they're simple stats tables or lists of participants.
In fact, "Fachzeitschrift "Boxsport" 1962 bis 1970" translates to "Boxsport magazine 1962 to 1970," which is useless as a source as it is just a range of years for a particular magazine. The same goes for the almanac - it's just a range of years, not actually a citation to a specific source or even a specific issue. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it could be a range of issues, but that might simply means he's in every issue. One of them are these ones, but later years. Anyway, do we assume good faith for editors on other language wikis as well? StAnselm (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith or not, we cannot possibly be expected to make the assumption that the subject appears in every single issue in that range, nor that each appearance necessarily constitutes significant coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Draftify until significant coverage can actually be found. Ping me if someone confirms the de.wiki sources. –dlthewave ☎ 12:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A singular newspaper article is not enough significant coverage to pass the WP:GNG. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We can't just assume inscrutable offline sources contain SIGCOV, and the sources we can see do not build up to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 02:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: recommend draftifying instead. Reevaluating the sources gives me some pause, as there is a detailed profile of him in there, and with the addition of (largely routine) recaps of some of his fights there's rather more potential here for further SIGCOV offline. JoelleJay (talk) 00:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage clearly exists to GNG is met. There is no requirement hat sources be easily accessible, only that they exist. Smartyllama (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? What sources? Can you name one? How do you know it has significant coverage? Please be specific - a range of years in a magazine is not a source. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep photo appeared on Page 1 of the Berliner Zeitung[21] on 29 May 1965 during the European Championships. There's a three paragraph account of the semi-final fight on page 7. This isn't sufficient SIGCOV by itself, but its existence strongly suggests to me that there is other coverage available in the specialized press. The fight was also covered on page 1 and page 8 of Neues Deutschland[22] the same day. --Jahaza (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found a particularly useful source (and a couple of passing references) in Armeerundschau and added them to the article.--Jahaza (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By "three paragraph" do you mean actual paragraphs, or just double-spaced sentences? JoelleJay (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I meant paragraphs because that's how they were typeset. I didn't count the sentences. Feel free to take a look yourself (or even search for some more sources to improve the encyclopedia!) But in the meantime, WP:AGF.--Jahaza (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We regularly get editors claiming double-spaced sentences are "paragraphs", it's not unreasonable or ABF to clarify. The source looks like a standard match recap... JoelleJay (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The source looks like a standard match recap..." Not surprising since that's what I said it was. Jahaza (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of SIGCOV. Avilich (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are clearly sources that are SIGCOV. You can maybe argue that there aren't enough of them, but there are several. Jahaza (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very convinced that the sources other than the first are significant enough, but very well, I'll abstain from this one. Avilich (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Maybe more detailed source analysis will resolve this
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 16:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by G4#Original 4. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cinematech[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTV. I could find any sources that show that notability is met. Prod was declined for technical reasons. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 16:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to John Wayne Parr#Family. Sandstein 08:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Rivera-Parr[edit]

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

Redirect Lack of independent, in-depth coverage. Sources listed show no indication of meeting WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable career as a fighter. Subject does not meet WP:NMMA, WP:NBOX and updated WP:NKICK criteria. Fighting for a World Muaythai Council title does not meet WP:NKICK. Being married to a notable person does not constitute notability. Lethweimaster (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 16:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to John Wayne Parr#Family She doesn't appear to meet the current WP:NKICK and I don't believe the existing coverage meets WP:GNG. However, she's a fairly well known kickboxer and is mentioned in her husband's article. Papaursa (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. This article may have been a bit clumsy, but it was a legitimate source on a real international organisation of major value for the environmental transformation of Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans and Turkey since 1990. I would be glad to go back and edit it for accuracy and sources, but if possible, please, revert its deletion. Pavelan (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe[edit]

Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Organization appears to fail WP:ORG and WP:SIGCOV. Most mentions online are just listings on various NGO websites and directories. The article reads like it is copy-pasted from the organization's materials. There doesn't seem to be enough information online to establish notability or to improve the article, so it seems it would be better to delete. Chagropango (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lagaren (ship)[edit]

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

Many of the listed sources are unreliable (Facebook) and/or do not provide significant coverage (photo collections and a brief mention in the Spanish article). As I haven't found anything else in a WP:BEFORE search – one paragraph in this is the most I found, though I'm unsure if it's enough) – I'm not convinced the subject is notable, though I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if such sources are found. Complex/Rational 15:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newly added sources provide more detailed coverage, likely enough to meet the GNG threshold. As stated, I withdraw this nomination (so it may be closed early in the absence of other arguments for deletion), though sourcing does still need work. Complex/Rational 20:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I found three articles in a Swedish newspaper archive which spent enough time talking about the ship that it was worth using them as sources, although none of them are primarily focused specifically on Lagaren/Svinbådan. They do, however, refer to it in a way that indicates some small amount of fame beyond what can be expected of a lightvessel. There are sources and indications that we could probably find more, maybe if someone here has simple access to the Royal Library newspaper archive. /Julle (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I strongly oppose deleting this article. Wikipedia has numerous articles on lightships in which the unique circumstances of their careers were sufficient to justify notability. Notably I can cite WLV-613 and Lightvessel No. 11 as examples, neither of which are Iron-hulled or built in the 19th century. The Lagaren's unusual age, involvement in a drug smuggling case, highly-visible location on the Tenerife dock, and appearance in a Swedish TV Series only add to it's uniqueness. The ship was mentioned three times as one of the main vessel's involved in a drug interdiction case in the cited Spanish article; I fail to understand how that constitutes only a "brief mention" by the article. I would argue that a lightship's connection to a unique and particular hydrographic feature, often for long periods of time, gives them an ipso facto notability that similarly-classed ships that perform interchangeable roles would not have. The ship is unique enough to be the main subject of two articles in the Swedish maritime history magazine Lanspumpen. Granted, I did use Facebook as a source for one particular piece of information: that the ship was refitted in Portsmouth in 2010. If you have an issue with using Facebook as a source, why not simply propose deleting this source rather than deleting the entire article? Altogether, it is easy to prove that "at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source" per Wikipedia guidelines--UshankaCzar (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on the creator to demonstrate that such coverage exists and add sources to the article. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources for why it's often not acceptable as a source – unless the credibility of the author is verified, social media posts can be anything written by anyone. In this case, I withdraw the nomination because the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources has been demonstrated – though in general, claiming to be "unique" is irrelevant unless sources reliably document it. Complex/Rational 20:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep there seems to be enough coverage in reliable sources to write a short but fully verified article on the subject, sourcing needs work though Draken Bowser (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Navarro Aznar[edit]

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

Non-notable skier/athlete. WP:BEFORE search doesn't bring up any third party sources to establish notability, and no medal record. Doesn't seem to come close to meeting WP:GNG SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 15:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Eclipse (Heroes)[edit]

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

This article has had issues since 2011 and they have not been addressed. There are five references four of them are there to give a rating of the episode, and they are slapped on the end of the article. It looks like they did this to avoid speedy deletion. Should be deleted and redirected to the season article. Previous editors have tried to address this and redirect to the season article but as of now there is not consensus. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 00:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I absolutely agree with delete - unequivocally fails GNG, and isn't there a part 2? It needs to be redirected as well. It's hard to believe we have editors saying 2 reviews satisfy GNG. ??? I hope we are not dealing with fancruft. Atsme 💬 📧 22:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom unless WP is now a clearinghouse for episode recaps from every flash in the pan TV show made since its inception. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we have guidelines to determine what is notable. The fact that most popular television episodes have multiple RS reviews appears to bother you. I suggest you spend some time to study and internalize our deletion guidelines, as you appear to have a really poor grasp of them. Jclemens (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GNG is met by reviews already linked in the article, per Donaldd23. Jclemens (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's more to it than that. Otherwise anything mentioned twice in a newspaper would be notable. As the nom noted, the sourcing appears to be a perfunctory gesture, w/ the real goal being "getting my episode recap into WP." Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villains (Heroes) relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or merge/redirect to a season or episode list. I'm not convinced that two fairly routine reviews are sufficient to meet SIGCOV for any topic. I wouldn't accept it for a book or a movie, for example; I don't see why it's sufficient for a single episode. We also need to consider WP:NOPAGE when dealing with TV episodes - if the best that can be said about an episode even at the time of release is "it aired," does it really need its own page? Can it not be suitably covered in context in the season page? (Same rationale as for "Villains", but I think it applies here as well). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- episode has sufficient RS coverage to meet WP policy requirements. matt91486 (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So I hear you that it has the required coverage but I'm interested to know if you think that coverage is sustained long enough to be notable? Not being a jerk just trying to get an idea of what is what. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 05:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KSAWikipedian (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: There's two reviews cited for the episode (four, if you count the reviews for the separate parts). Thus, GNG is met. That being said, someone really should expand upon the reception section with the given sources, and trim the plot section, because currently it gives the impression that the subject fails WP:PLOT, which doesn't make it look good in a deletion discussion like this, and was one of the reasons this was redirected in the first place, before being brought here. MoonJet (talk) 11:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect - fails GNG, does not have even the minimum cited RS. I'm ok with a redirect to the main article Heroes, but it cannot exist in main space as a standalone based on the cited sources, two of which are the A.V. Club, part of the G/O Media family of sites—including The Onion, Gizmodo, Kotaku, etc. Seriously? How is this encyclopedic, much less worthy of a standalone article in an encyclopedia? Those reviews fail NEPISODE because they are purely plotline reviews. Sure, it's worthy of a listing in TV Guide - no problem, but an encyclopedia? Atsme 💬 📧 21:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Strikes + add-on – see full review below. 14:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are incorrect in your assessment of A.V. Club. It is considered a Reliable Source. See the list here: [23]. You should research the sources to determine their reliability before making assumptions and voting based on those incorrect assumptions. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, I don't want fan cruft to be angry with me, but quite frankly I am not incorrect. WP:RSP is nothing more than an essay. The publisher of The Onion may well have some worthy material we can use via CONTEXTMATTERS, but this is not one of them – it is an entertainment division of a publisher who obviously considers reality a joke via The Onion, but that is just my opinion. Let's focus on WP:NOT which tells us we are not a directory, much less a TV Guide. WP is an encyclopedia - and perhaps WP:CIR is required to understand what an encyclopedia actually represents, or perhaps fan cruft can explain it to us. I'm not seeing a one in a million TV episode as a standalone to be a contribution to the "sum of all knowledge" unless that particular episode is actually notable - as in, inspiring articles in local and regional news media about its content, etc.. I haven't seen that in this situation. And here is another FYI for you, WP:RSP was the creation of a single editor with very little support. It was never an accepted guideline by the wider community. Sorry, but no - this article FAILS GNG. Atsme 💬 📧 00:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is an explanatory essay, but it links to FOUR discussions where it was determined that AV Club is a reliable source. Your opinion does NOT trump discussions of other editors where a decision was made. Go back and read the discussions. The "essay" merely summarizes the various discussions of various sources into one easily located site. Do you seriously think the list was created by that editor based on their opinion alone? That editor might not have even participated in the discussions where AV Club or any of the other sites listed. C'mon! FOUR discussions have determined that AV Club is a reliable source, and just because you think it isn't doesn't mean anything. Your opinion does not trump the consensus of the editors involved in the discussion. You think AV Club isn't reliable? Start another discussion. So, with reviews by AV Club and IGN (both of which have had discussions about them and both have been deemed reliable sources), that makes this article notable and passing WP:GNG. Consensus rules. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond the reliability of a source issue, the article still fails GNG and NEPISODE. Let's start with the article history involving reverts of redirects, because every time a redirect is reverted, the article is added back to the NPP queue, and this article has had issues dating back to July 2011, and all this time, nothing has changed that warrants keeping it; rather, it has become a time sink.
  1. Redirected 2022-04-29
  2. Donaldd23 reverted - needs discussion
  3. Redirected again 2022-08-23
  4. again Donald23, added 2 sources
  5. AfD nom reason: This article consists almost entirely of a plot summary. It should be expanded to provide more balanced coverage that includes real-world context. (July 2011) This article needs additional citations for verification. (July 2011)
And here we are now with more reasons this article should be deleted:
  • The 4 sources fail to establish N per both GNG and NEPISODE. Why? Put simply, we have a total of 4 sources for 2 different episodes = a couple per episode, not multiple as required. The NBC link is unrecoverable, and was only a listing, so it does not count toward N. See the following per NEPISODE (my emphasis):

An episode of a television series is not inherently notable simply because it has aired. Having a plot, episode-specific cast and crew or ratings and viewership numbers is sometimes redundant to similar information at a main article, season article, or an in-depth character article.

It goes on to explain the following which applies to the 2 reviews for each episode; i.e., all they talk about is the plotline:

Multiple reviews or other reliable, independent, non-trivial commentary demonstrate notability for a television episode. It is preferred to have reliable sources discussing production aspects of the episode in question, such as its development and writing; the casting of specific actors; design elements; filming or animation; post-production work; or music, rather than simply recounting the plot. This could include discussions of its broader impact. The scope of reviews should extend beyond recaps and simple review aggregator coverage, such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. While these may be used in episode articles that have already demonstrated notability, a reception section only comprising these is generally not adequately demonstrating coverage. See "Fire and Blood", "Filmed Before a Live Studio Audience", "Marge vs. the Monorail", or "Volcano" as examples of such articles.

Ironically, the 2 cited sources per episode discuss how bad the actual series and episodes are per the following two examples, beginning with Part 1 review by The A.V. Club Tonight's part one of a two-parter, though, wasn't half bad. Actually, it was: It was half-bad. Some plotlines flatlined, as usual, but some actually had me genuinely curious about next week and hoping "The Eclipse, Part 1" wasn't yet another upswing that's indicative of nothing. Graded C-, and then there is the IGN plotline review:
Part 2: What was the point? What did we learn from this power-stealing eclipse that we couldn't have found out some other, possibly more interesting way? The article fails GNG, the redirects are not resulting in noticeable improvement to warrant a standalone, so deletion is the proper action. These 2 episodes are already listed in List of Heroes episodes #44 + #45, and I no longer see a purpose for redirecting, only to have it reverted. Atsme 💬 📧 14:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll note that the keeps are noting how NEPISODE and GNG are met by multiple reviews, while those opposed to keeping an article are attempting to move the notability bar higher in an appeal to non-policy, non-guideline "there should be MORE coverage" arguments. Jclemens (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • confused face icon Just curious...how did you determine that 2 sources for each episode is considered "multiple", especially when those sources are nothing but aggregator coverage of plotlines? 2 = a couple for each episode, but if we combine the reviews in the 2 AV sources and 2 IGN sources in the same manner the article combined the 2 episodes, we end-up with only 2 RS (1 AV + 1 IGN) when there should be at least 6, a couple of which should cover more than the yada yada plotlines. I don't see anything in the delete votes that are raising the bar, but it does appear that the keeps want the bar lowered in order to meet GNG. Atsme 💬 📧 13:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question To those saying delete: why exactly is redirecting not an acceptable option? Redirecting is common practice when it comes to non-notable episodes of notable shows (see Category:Redirects from episodes and its subcategories), people looking for the episode will still be navigated to a relevant page, editors wishing to expand the article upon gathering enough decent sources have at least a skeleton they can work with in the edit history, there's nothing in the article that warrants speedy deletion (as such copyright problems or harassment), and anyone could create the redirect immediately after deletion. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I already provided a valid reason above, but again, it already went through 2 redirects and 2 reverts. It is low volume in page views, and is already listed in List of Heroes episodes. We do not want to get in the habit of redirecting every episode of a TV series. Atsme 💬 📧 02:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the redirects keep being undone, we can restore the redirects and lock the page; see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thom Huge (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curious George 3: Back to the Jungle, both of which resulted in a redirect and perma-lock in response to the redirects being undone.
    • Even if it is low in page views, there is still a navigational benefit to having these redirects around; for example, it makes for a nice, clean link on a page like Eclipse (disambiguation).
    • Common practice is to create or at least have redirects for episodes even - no, especially - if they're already listed on a list of episodes. There's an entire category tree dedicated to these redirects that I pointed to above, most of which point to specific anchors on the list; am I to believe that all 20,000+ of them need to be deleted?
    • If, after all of that, you still think the title is not suitable for a redirect, you can take it to WP:RFD all the same should this discussion close with a redirect. I'll imagine it'll fail, given WP:CHEAP, but if you feel it's worth a shot, I'm not going to stop you.
    -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 23:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Villains (Heroes)[edit]

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

This article has had issues since 2014 and they have not been addressed. There are two references that give a rating of the episode, and they are slapped on the end of the article. It looks like they did this to avoid speedy deletion. Should be deleted and redirected to the season article. Previous editors have tried to address this and redirect to the season article but as of now there is not consensus. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 00:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 00:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is sadly what happens when a television show burns out and leaves barely a cultural memory; we get to sweep up the remainders of it down the line as if it was stuck in a storage facility and checked in upon here and there to see if it can still be used, only to be sold off on Storage Wars when we forget to pay the bill. This? It's a long-forgotten sweeps stunt that didn't change anything about the show's narrative to speak of. No redirect. Nate • (chatter) 02:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are 2 reviews linked in the article. That is enough for WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 15:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Donaldd23 We tried to redirect this article to the list of episodes but you reverted it back (twice) with the comment "Has 2 reviews" and in a previous revert you said there needed to be a discussion. So here we are. Does this article having two published reviews technically pass WP:GNG? Yes. Do the references for this article support the article, improve the article, or support the article? No. Policies and guidelines (including WP:GNG) are principles not laws. This article is in essence a wall of text with two references slapped at the end to ensure the most minimal passing of WP:GNG. The references themselves talk about the episode but all they support in the article is a pair of short one sentence statements about the rating they gave the episode. I don't see anyone coming in to fix the problems that have been tagged for the last seven years or so. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 00:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The two sources do not show sustaining impact, so I disagree with GNG being satisfied with two contemporary recaps posted at the time the episode aired, not overviews written in the future with the show's declining impact known since then. There hasn't been any since the time it aired, and I've grown tired of episode articles which are 'two reviews GNG'-cleared based on hastily-written recaps the night of or next day (a major issue with adult animation and comic-like franchise episodes in retrospect that's aged us badly). A paragraph suffices for most episodes of television, and this entire article is a poor in-universe plot dump which wouldn't even be acceptable on a Fandom site. The two recaps even grade it as a near-average episode. Nate • (chatter) 03:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Creative works don't have to show sustained impact. You're thinking of WP:NEVENT. Jclemens (talk) 01:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The reviews literally spell out that it was an average episode of television. There are no other sources besides that. This is an episode which has never made any kind of 'best episodes ever' TV list, nor again did it shift the narrative of the show appreciably enough to deserve an article. Nate • (chatter) 22:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is a major divide between editors saying "Keep", GNG is met and those editors advocating "Delete". Right now, there is no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Notability requires verifiable evidence and there isn't enough real-world impact to write a WP:NOT WP:PLOT version of this article. Jontesta (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the barest GNG pass, but the reviews cited are from the A.V. Club and IGN, reliable sources which are far more significant than "random blogs". The "plot" section is far too extensive and needs to be trimmed down, of course, but that is not a matter for AfD. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge/redirect to a season or episode list. I'm not convinced that two fairly routine reviews are sufficient to meet SIGCOV for any topic. I wouldn't accept it for a book or a movie, for example; I don't see why it's sufficient for a single episode. We also need to consider WP:NOPAGE when dealing with TV episodes - if the best that can be said about an episode even at the time of release is "it aired," does it really need its own page? Can it not be suitably covered in context in the season page? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KSAWikipedian (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: As with The Eclipse, there's two in-depth reviews cited for the episode, and thus, GNG is met. But like that article, the reception section needs to be expanded upon with the given sources and the plot section trimmed down, as it doesn't make the article look good in deletion discussions like this. MoonJet (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. IMHO I'm neutral, and both options are viable, I've added a bit of details to the reviews (sadly, they are mainly plot recaps, but are just significant enough). With just two reviews, this is a very borderline AfD. Notability is debatable, IMHO, based on interpretations. On one hand, IGN and A.V. Club are not random blogs, Just Another Cringy Username, they are all considered RS on WP:VG/RS. On the other hand, the majority of the article is the plot, which is pointless fancraft, I'd like to have it almost entirely trimmed, but that results in a WP:PERMASTUB, which results in no need for an article if there's no potential to be anymore than a stub... Also, my POV can't understand why an episode with just 2 RS need to have a separate article instead of being just discussed in the main article for Heroes, despite this one being borderline notable. VickKiang (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't talking about this specific case, but in a more general sense. I've noticed a POV here of "It meets GNG, therefore it's notable," w/ little consideration of things like SIGCOV, NOPAGE, and subject-specific notability. I'm arguing that if GNG is all it takes, you could find two random mentions in some obscure corner of the internet and technically get it to pass GNG, but shouldn't we try and do better than that?
    May I add, I'm enjoying this discussion! Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You enjoy trying to find pretexts to destroy others' volunteer work? I would be ashamed to admit such a thing in public... but I'm a decent human being who appreciates the value of contributions here. Are you? Jclemens (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, @Jclemens your attitude is not cool. It's a Wikipedia AfD discussion about a TV episode that aired 14 years ago. There's a time and place to get upset about something, this is not it. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 07:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    1) Don't presume to tell me when I am and am not upset, and 2) don't presume to judge the importance of particular article to others on the basis of your own opinions and attitudes. Reacting to an inappropriate statement implying, for lack of a better essay, an WP:MMORPG attitude, is appropriate, if not necessary for appropriate health of the community. Jclemens (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jclemens I can tell you're at the very least displeased, I'm not trying to invalidate your feelings here. We can handle this professionally. None of us are upset about what you said or your opinion or views on people's work here. What concerns me is your comments towards Just Another Cringy Username and VickKiang, it's unprofessional and WP:NOBITING. You're talking about the health of the community and here we have two editors who have been here less than a year getting chewed out over an article about a TV episode that aired 14 years ago. Honestly, and I mean it, if you are this concerned about this issue then lets go and try to change the policy about TV episodes so it can be settled once and for all, we might disagree about what should be done with these articles but we can still turn this whole thing into something productive. If you want to go in this direction just hit me up and I'll help draft something with you with the pros and cons for each and we can take it to RfC. I am completely serious and willing to work with you to change this policy if you think it'll make a difference. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 08:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply! I have to admit that Jclemens is a far better more experienced editor than most of us, but IMHO I at least have a decent (not great but not bad) knowledge of WP:GNG and most WP:SNGs. Previously I did vote weak keep in AfDs with just two RS, but after seeing a lot of them closing in no consensus, I'm iffy here, though IMO for games, films, or literature related articles I'm more certain in my AfD votes. Of course, I'm not sure where's the best venue to open a RfC or discuss, at WP:GNG, WP:NFILM, or start an essay then discuss on its talk page? Thanks again! VickKiang (talk) 08:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: I understand your point and disagree with Just's points, but saying that Just Another Cringy Username enjoy[s] trying to find pretexts to destroy others' volunteer work is a bit of a stretch, and I'm a decent human being who appreciates the value of contributions here. Are you? seems exaggerated and irrelevant to this discussion. Whether article meets GNG or not is open to intepretation, but IMHO anyone can agree that most of the article is so poor that it needs to be significantly trimmed if it's kept. VickKiang (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to trimming or any other ATD, but the notability threshold is pretty clear--two reviews--and met by the subject. Those who try to argue anyway that an article should be deleted or redirected, rather than fixing it themselves, and openly admit their glee at the prospect are demonstrating that personal gratification, rather than the improvement of Wikipedia, is their motivation. Jclemens (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: You keep asserting based on your inclusionist POV that notability is clear, and criticising other editors for disagreeing. This isn't the case as notability is borderline, and it doesn't make sense to comment this negatively on others simply if you disagree. VickKiang (talk) 07:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I keep stating that it is clear because it is clear. Calling me names doesn't change that. Trying to call reviews "trivial" and move the goalposts isn't something new: I've seen it for a decade and a half. The integrity of notability guidelines is enough reason to dispute the ridiculous expectations of some who are trying to get around their plain, long-standing, widely-understood meaning. Jclemens (talk) 07:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Whatever your POV and my POV, IMO we could respectfully disagree, 2 refs is the barest of squeaking in notability, not to mention WP:NOPAGE and potentially the need for WP:TNT, if you just ignore these and accuse all delete voters are ridiculous, fine. VickKiang (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question To those saying delete: why exactly is redirecting not an acceptable option? Redirecting is common practice when it comes to non-notable episodes of notable shows (see Category:Redirects from episodes and its subcategories), people looking for the episode will still be navigated to a relevant page, editors wishing to expand the article upon gathering enough decent sources have at least a skeleton they can work with in the edit history, there's nothing in the article that warrants speedy deletion (as such copyright problems or harassment), and anyone could create the redirect immediately after deletion. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No reason at all. I'm always open to redirect as an AtD.
    If you look upthread, this article was redirected twice and reverted both times by an editor who insisted on an AfD discussion, so as @Dr vulpes said, "here we are." Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't vote above, but I'm too open to a redirect. VickKiang (talk) 04:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Promotionalism is rarely a reason to delete unless it rises to the level of WP:CSD#G11; this article, however, does so. As such the arguments to delete are quite persuasive. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Ghappour[edit]

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

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (April 2022) This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (April 2022) This article cannot be verified due to paywall references This article is not notable--doesn't contribute significantly to any field, profession, or social cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justfactsnofiction (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KSAWikipedian (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Flowery language right off the bat. Agree with nom, non-notable. Likely an SEO article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - The article is a promotional almost to the point of WP:TNT, but I think the subject is notable or very close to notable. He is mentioned in numerous top tier publications, albeit not in depth, and one of his academic papers published in Stanford Law Review has over 100 citations. There are so many media mentions that I am not able to go through them all right now, but he is popping up in NYT, Washington Post, WSJ, Wired, Ars Technica, etc. Most appear to be just quotes where he was offering a comment of some kind, so maybe not enough to count toward WP:GNG, but it could very well go toward WP:NACADEMIC "the person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Some definitions of a "highly cited" paper indicate that a paper that is in the top 1% of papers published in that field in that year is considered highly cited. I can't find that data, but I know that the most highly cited law papers in a given year have a few hundred citations on average, which could place his paper near the top 1%. His legal career, academic career, and media appearances would not be sufficient to prove notability on their own, but combined I think they could bring him close. The reason that he has gotten so much press is because his research areas are very hot topics over the last few years, and if the article were restructured to cover those topics rather than reading like a vanity piece, it could actually be a good encyclopedic article about a relatively prominent professor and lawyer with a unique body of work that has rightfully gotten him a lot of media attention. Additionally, it also appears that earlier in his career he represented 40 Guantanamo Bay prisoners, giving him quite an interesting and prominent profile overall. Chagropango (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good points, however I'd like to push back on your last point: He was a staff attorney at the time of his "representation" of Guantanamo inmates. Staff attorneys have no chance of making partner, it is ranked below an associate attorney position, and most clients would never know the staff attorney is working on their case. Staff attorneys could be considered "back office" workers, unlike the attorney who meets with clients, goes to court, and such. I think given the lack of clarity on the nature of his work, it is not fit for encyclopedia publication without more information about what role he played. Also, given the conflict of interest this article currently has, it is likely an over-exaggeration aimed at increasing clout. (https://beincrypto.com/nym-taps-renowned-attorney-ahmed-ghappour-as-general-counsel/) [Source reliability unknown]
    Further, the self promotion done by the subject is astounding, and leads to a lot of media coverage. Accordingly, this gives the subject an outsized presence online compared to actual experience or accomplishments. The fact is, the subject knows the internet, and how to leverage that knowledge to increase his online presence. Because of this, and the subjects history of self promotion on WP, an article about the subject may always be a target for puff pieces. I think this should be considered going forward, thanks for the conversation everybody. Justfactsnofiction (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Campbell (author)[edit]

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

Cannot find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Nor any book reviews. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Edwardx (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and England. Shellwood (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete albeit reluctantly. He seems to be active mainly with works of local interest, in particular tide tables for East Anglia/Norfolk. But I do not find any sources about him. Lamona (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: For the author's local focus in East Anglia/Norfolk he seems notable, but I concede that there are few secondary sources. I might recommend improving the article instead of deleting.--IndyNotes (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • How would you suggest improving it? This discussion is more about what sources exist, not the current state of the article though, as per WP:NEXIST. I think finding some significant reviews of his publications is one route to improving the article, but if they don't exist, not a lot more can be done. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KSAWikipedian (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete lack of independant significant coverage to warrant a pass of WP:GNG/WP:NAUTHOR. I couldn't find any significant reviews of any of his published works. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Military patrol at the 1936 Winter Olympics. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Hiermann[edit]

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

Non-notable skier; WP:BEFORE search doesn't bring up any third party sources to establish notability and doesn't meet WP:GNG. Would also support a redirect to Military patrol at the 1936 Winter Olympics as an alternative to deletion. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 14:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 14:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Panh Khemanith[edit]

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

He was at the 1980 Olympics but did not rank high enough to pass WP:NTRACK. A WP:BEFORE search did not bring up enough to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Perenni[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete, WP:BEFORE search doesn't bring up any third party sources (can't even find a source that proves this person exists,) and doesn't have a medal record. Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 13:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Germán Cerezo Alonso[edit]

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

Non-notable ski mountaineer, no medal record, and before search brings up no third party sources at all. Doesn't seem to come close to satisfying WP:GNG. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 13:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Farag Ali[edit]

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

This person fails WP:PROF and other claims to notability are problematic since there are not very many citations to his somewhat extravagant ideas. His association with the WP:FRINGE group "Quantum Gravity Research" means that WP:FRINGEBLP comes into play. I don't think he is particularly well-known for his fringe advocacy. Other attestations to notability seem lacking. jps (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 12:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster Digital[edit]

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

This page is about a PR agency. The page appears to have been created by its founder Craig Dillon (see my discussion on its talk page). I've tried to find independent media coverage of the organisation - the business name complicates this slightly, as there are false positives on articles about Westminster's digital strategies - however, I'm simply not finding anything which would satisfy ORGDEPTH. Coverage is confined to a few mentions in passing, and promo interviews with Dillon. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as much as I dislike PR companies trying to influence Wikipedia, my inherent skepticism isn't enough to overcome the inherent notability I'm seeing here. The articles in GQ and Wired are both high-quality, in-depth coverage of the organization, not just passing mentions, and the Sky News article also has what I would consider significant coverage, even if the quality is slightly lower. The other sources are mostly passing mentions, but they help establish notability as well given their credibility (BBC, The Times). Not the usual Forbes blogspam or churnalism. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The article should be thoroughly monitored for NPOV and COI violations, though. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The company simply is notable, however it would be good if there is some more critical coverage which could be added to it to make it less promotional in nature. Chagropango (talk) 12:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable per sources. Took me a while to see what relation the blonde fellow in the photo was. Could use a caption. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

United States Academic Decathlon topics[edit]

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

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, just a blanket list of thousands of subjects from an academic competition. We don't have lists for every subject in an examination, and this is no exception. Almost all primary sources or otherwise passing mentions of a topic. – Berrely • T∕C 09:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Notability of the event is without doubt. Merge/redirect can and should be discussed on the talk page instead. Regards SoWhy 12:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Darya Dugina[edit]

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

This is a content fork of the article on Darya Dugina. It should be changed back to a redirect. -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the killing itself is notable and warrants its own article. BilletsMauves€500 09:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close + strong keep: still a page move discussion ongoing, this AfD just complicates matters. Furthermore the consensus is that this is a notable event, the question was whether the person was notable aside from death.Abcmaxx (talk) 09:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Abcmaxx. The killing is clearly notable, if anything Darya Dugina is the one that could be argued WP:ONEEVENT, and there is already a discussion in place for that. AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, her death by car bombing is clearly notable. — The Anome (talk) 11:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per all reasons given above. Yadsalohcin (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Events, and Politics. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Persson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 08:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sopormetal[edit]

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

I nominated this for PROD, but Explicit has declined the PROD, noting it was previously nominated in 2012. During the PROD, Nabla had provided a link to the company's insolvency in 2020: see Talk page. I am now bringing this to AfD on the same rationale: "A WP:SPA article describing a company's wares. The web domain now redirects to a Harris Products Group site, but there is no mention of Sopormetal there and I can see no media coverage of a merger/acquisition. The references are trade show listings etc.; I am seeing nothing to demonstrate attained notability.". AllyD (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Portugal. AllyD (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I don't know anything about insolvencies (other than what a informed citizen may learn from the news). I presume the page I linked to is about a *process* of insolvency, during which there are negotiations with creditors, employees, stakeholders in general. There are tens of company info pages listing this company, some list more recent reports, e.g [24] (in Portuguese). I have no idea how credible are the pages. Note that going bankrupt and being acquired does not indicate non-notability. Anyway, I can not find anything about the company. So it is probably one to delete - Nabla (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't have good citations. Couple of them are tradeshow and exhibition listings. norgarante, which might have been a good citation is a dead link. Samanthany (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to SpongeBob SquarePants (season 3)#ep46a. Consensus to restore old redirect. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Effect (SpongeBob SquarePants)[edit]

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

Before search returned no results, contested direct redirect, asking for consensus for redirect per WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT Justiyaya 07:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. Justiyaya 07:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I note that this title was originally created as a redirect, then recently (as in, a few days ago) expanded into a stub article which does not assert notability--and, in fact, pointed to the wrong season. I support re-redirecting with history intact so that a future editor may try and expand the stub into a real article if notability is demonstrated. Failing that, the coverage at the season episode seems adequate. I'll note that the practice of un-redirecting, adding to an article, and re-redirecting if notability is still not met is a far more effective way to progressively draft an article with a known redirect target/parent article than usage of draft space. Jclemens (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the redirect I'm in full agreement with Jclemens. Pichpich (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: While I would like to see more SpongeBob episodes to have an article (I created a couple myself not too long back), I'm not seeing much coverage with this one when I just did some Google searches. So until sources of decent coverage can be uncovered, this should be redirected to SpongeBob SquarePants (season 3). It's a shame too, because this is one of my favorite episodes from the third season, so I would have been willing to try and save the article had I found the sources, but yeah, redirect. MoonJet (talk) 11:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neo Sandja[edit]

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

No significant coverage. The coverage from the citations mostly goes to FTM Fitness World. DavidEfraim (talk) 07:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raziya Foundation Eye Hospital[edit]

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

No significant coverage from the sources. Fails GNG DavidEfraim (talk) 07:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matthias Reimann-Andersen[edit]

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

Nothing indicates notability. Fails GNG DavidEfraim (talk) 07:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gelareh Sheibani[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Fails GNG DavidEfraim (talk) 07:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 16:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coyote Lake (Teton County, Wyoming)[edit]

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

Fails GNG/GEOLAND due to lack of significant coverage. The only source besides GNIS and topo maps is a passing mention in a climbing guide which is insufficient to establish SIGCOV. –dlthewave ☎ 05:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wyoming. –dlthewave ☎ 05:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer - please see the list of other articles subject to this en masse deletion attempt, or it may just as easy to see them all at User talk:MONGO. The same arguments apply across the board. Atsme 💬 📧 16:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Listed on GNIS and USGS Topo maps as a placename important enough to have mention. While not of great notability there is NO HARM in keeping as the article suffers none of the other criteria. For the record I am an inclusionist. dlthewave prodded this article less than a week ago and now sends it to Afd after I have provided additions to it which seem to meet GEOLAND.--MONGO (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - easily passes NEXIST and NGEO. Atsme 💬 📧 13:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes our guideline for inclusion of lakes. Lightburst (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GEOLAND, which says The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography.. Here we have an article with 2 lines and 3 sources after 10 years. It seems evident and searches bear out that there is not enough verifiable content here for an encyclopaedic article. It doesn't even get sufficient notability for a mention in the parent Grand Teton National Park and that is where editors should concentrate their efforts before spinning the information out into a new article. The keep !votes above do nothing to explain why this is notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a reason to merge or redirect... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no mergeable content on this page. A redirect is unnecessary in my opinion, but redirects cost nothing, so a redirect to Grand Teton National Park would be an acceptable outcome. Tbh, if I were looking at these pages, I would probably have concluded a bold redirect of the lot of them was a much more productive route as AfD currently has no means to delete at scale. It does not alter my view, however, that there is no encyclopaedic topic possible at this level of granularity, and that this page should therefore be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy and Theleekycauldron: I have added a few references. Because it is a named natural feature it passes WP:GEOLAND. It is also in a protected area which would mean the actual lake is also protected, and it is referenced. It should be kept per our guidelines. I could find more for the article but I will wait to see what others say. Lightburst (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding these. One of these sources, the book, says The beautiful alpine Coyote Lake (10,201) lies high at the head of the south fork in a section on "Open Canyon". That is all. The web page says that a couple hiked to Coyote Lake, one of the highest-altitude lakes and again they say it is beautiful. And again, that is all. These are passing mentions, not treatments of the lake. Rather than establishing notability, they reaffirm my belief that Coyote Lake is not a feature that has sufficient notability for an encylopaedia article, and that our treatment of the lake should be like the books: putting the mention of it within a broader treatment. The book has it as a brief mention in Canyons and Approaches. You could also include it in a list of lakes in the park, or an article on hydrology, or on trails etc. The fact it is in a protected area is not relevant per notability guidelines. The guidelines are clear that a protected area is notable, but the relevant section here is "Named natural features". I don't intend to say any more, although I will happily re-evaluate my position again, should anyone find any sources that establish notability. I have looked though, and I haven't found any. Sorry. (genuinely sorry. I am not ideologically wedded to article deletion. I just think in this case it is called for as no encyclopaedic article is possible starting from here). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant PAGs that apply here include: WP:CONTN, WP:NEXIST, WP:V, WP:NGEO, and WP:SNG. There is no disputing the fact that these lakes are nationally protected, named glacial lakes (geographical features) in the Grand Tetons, and that satisfies WP:N per WP:GEOLAND. Atsme 💬 📧 16:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Can't immediately find sources on this one. But I'd still say it's a GEOLAND pass. Ovinus (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep at this time. I see reasonable policy based arguments on both sides. I recognize that the state of sourcing in the article remains a valid concern for the long term viability of this page as a stand alone article, and I therefore doubt this is the last word on this subject. However, given that the related discussions had similar discussions and closed as keep, I am doing a semi-procedural close for consistency of outcome. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cirque Lake (Teton County, Wyoming)[edit]

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

Fails GNG and GEOLAND due to lack of significant coverage. The only source aside from topos and GNIS is a brief mention in a climbing guide. This is insufficient to establish SIGCOV as it is discussed only in relation to climbing access routes rather than direct coverage of the lake itself. –dlthewave ☎ 05:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wyoming. –dlthewave ☎ 05:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Listed on GNIS and USGS Topo maps as a placename important enough to have mention. While not of great notability there is NO HARM in keeping as the article suffers none of the other criteria. For the record I am an inclusionist. dlthewave prodded this article less than a week ago and now sends it to Afd after I have provided additions to it which seem to meet GEOLAND.--MONGO (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GEOLAND, which says The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography.. Here we have an article with 2 lines and 3 sources after 10 years. It seems evident and searches bear out that there is not enough verifiable content here for an encyclopaedic article. It doesn't even get sufficient notability for a mention in the parent Grand Teton National Park and that is where editors should concentrate their efforts before spinning the information out into a new article. The keep !votes above do nothing to explain why this is notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already explained this at the other 10 or so articles in this mass deletion attempt. The NGEO page banner clearly states (my bold underline): Places with nationally protected status (e.g. protected areas, national heritage sites, cultural heritage sites) and named natural features, with verifiable information beyond simple statistics are presumed to be notable. We also have WP:NEXIST, which squelches your source argument; proper sources have been cited and others exist. WP:SNG clearly states Some SNGs have specialized functions: for example, the SNG for academics and professors and the SNG for geographic features operate according to principles that differ from the GNG. I'll go another step further with WP:CONTN: Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. Your comment about this article's 3 lines is irrelevant at AfD because (a) the current material is more than simple statistics, and (b) being a stub does not effect notability. HTH Atsme 💬 📧 21:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it passed WP:NEXIST from the get-go, and also passed NGEO – the same argument applies here that applies to the multiple other prodded and/or nommed articles by this same nom. Atsme 💬 📧 17:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer – the following articles are included in this group: updated 15:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forget-me-not Lakes (Wyoming)
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Man Lake
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grizzly Bear Lake
  4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bearpaw Lake (Teton County, Wyoming)
  5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coyote Lake (Teton County, Wyoming)
  6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dudley Lake (Teton County, Wyoming)
The nom could've started a discussion with the article creator FIRST, and maybe tagged the articles with a more sources needed tag...or like I have been doing, simply found the sources themselves. What a novel idea. Unnecessary.15:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC) Atsme 💬 📧 17:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Passes WP:GEOLAND. Hard to find newspaper sources for this one because a cirque is also just a geographical feature and there are a fair number of spurious instances of "cirque lake" (lowercase). I did find one source about a nearby minor airplane crash, but it's not fit for inclusion imv. ([25]) Ovinus (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC) Going to strike my vote because I'm really finding nothing useful here. The current sources are all passing mentions. Topos and GNIS are not good enough for GEOLAND. Ovinus (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 16:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bearpaw Lake (Teton County, Wyoming)[edit]

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

Fails GNG/GEOLAND due to lack of significant coverage. The only non-map/database source is a passing mention in a hiking guide. –dlthewave ☎ 05:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wyoming. –dlthewave ☎ 05:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes WP:GEOLAND, it is a named geographical feature with sources. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 05:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Listed on GNIS and USGS Topo maps as a placename important enough to have mention. While not of great notability there is NO HARM in keeping as the article suffers none of the other criteria. For the record I am an inclusionist. dlthewave prodded this article less than a week ago and now sends it to Afd and I have not yet had time to make further improvements.--MONGO (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – GEOLAND, with plenty of room to expand. Atsme 💬 📧 10:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC) ADDING: this AfD is one of about 10+/- others by this same nom and same author (who has multiple FAs under their belt).[reply]
Note to closer: the following lakes are in this group with same keep reasons plus NEXIST applies to the following: updated Atsme 💬 📧 15:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forget-me-not Lakes (Wyoming)
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Man Lake
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grizzly Bear Lake
  4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cirque Lake (Teton County, Wyoming) 
  5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coyote Lake (Teton County, Wyoming)
  6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dudley Lake (Teton County, Wyoming)
The nom could've started a discussion with the article creator FIRST, and maybe tagged the articles with a more sources needed tag. Atsme 💬 📧 17:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes our guidlines as a named natural feature. Lightburst (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GEOLAND, which says The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography.. Here we have an article with 2 lines and 3 sources after 10 years. It seems evident and searches bear out that there is not enough verifiable content here for an encyclopaedic article. It doesn't even get sufficient notability for a mention in the parent Grand Teton National Park except a quick mention regarding fishing. That article is where editors should concentrate their efforts before spinning the information out into a new article. The keep !votes above do nothing to explain why this is notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. I will repeat once more that the part of the guideline you quoted does not apply to nationally protected areas and named natural features. I have already explained this at the other 10 or so articles in this mass deletion attempt. The NGEO page banner clearly states (my bold underline): Places with nationally protected status (e.g. protected areas, national heritage sites, cultural heritage sites) and named natural features, with verifiable information beyond simple statistics are presumed to be notable. We also have WP:NEXIST, which squelches your source argument; proper sources have been cited and others exist. WP:SNG clearly states Some SNGs have specialized functions: for example, the SNG for academics and professors and the SNG for geographic features operate according to principles that differ from the GNG. I'll go another step further with WP:CONTN: Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. Your comment about this article's 3 lines is irrelevant at AfD because (a) the current material is more than simple statistics, and (b) being a stub does not effect notability. HTH Atsme 💬 📧 21:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And I will repeat once more that no one here disputes that Grand Teton National Park is notable, so no need to quote that part about protected areas, so the relevant text is named natural features, with verifiable information beyond simple statistics are presumed to be notable. but the page goes on to give guidelines for what constitutes verifiable information, and so, on that same page, in the exposition - rather than the nutshell guide - gives us WP:GEOLAND which I quoted. What does the nutshell mean by "verifiable information beyond simple statistics"? We read that The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. And again, WP:NEXIST is not relevant. I have not said that the sources must be in the article. I have said I have found no evidence that sufficient sources exist anywhere for a standalone article on Bearpaw Lake. AfD is a discussion, and my view is that there is a lot of sense in having some kind of article that brings all the lakes or sites/sights or whatever together into a single encyclopaedic article. I just think there are better ways to do this then to make all these stubs all over the place that no one touches for years, no one reads and no one benefits from. It is clear you care about the fact that this information is on Wikipedia somewhere but wouldn't it be better in some more encylopaedic article? Bearpaw lake does not meet the notability guidelines, and this is just dancing around the subject without providing any actual evidence to the contrary.
    I have said my piece and will leave it there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This article has been expanded as shown here.--MONGO (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    comment - Two new sources are added and as I said, I would reconsider if new evidence is found, but they are trail guides - how to get to the lake. The NPS guide tells us nothing about the lake, just directions. The other one is a reference to "The Rough Guide", which may be similar but I am not able to preview the book. Does it actually tell us any information about the lake? What does it tell us about the significance? If such sources exist (they don't even have to be in the article) then I would change my view to keep - but a trail guide on how to reach a lake without telling us anything about it does not indicate significance. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, your comments have no relevance to the notability of this article – see WP:CONTN, and WP:NEXIST. Please take your content suggestions to the article's TP. Atsme 💬 📧 17:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sirfurboy's comments are certainly relevant here and they raise a good point about the depth of the sources. These guidebooks typically mention features like this in passing, with a description of its location and perhaps a factoid or two. It's perfectly valid for an editor to question or reject the assertion that this satisfies SIGCOV, and we can't really fall back on NEXIST since there isn't really any substantial content that could be added from the source. –dlthewave ☎ 17:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree because (a) SIGCOV is not applicable for geographic features; SNG applies as stated in GNG, and (b) NEXIST is unequivocally applicable. A Google search is not likely to bring up the books, magazines, and/or other articles that may very well be available in public libraries, USGS, the National Park Service, NOAA (since these are natural glacial lakes), Wyoming Game & Fish Dept. and various other State resource agencies, private conservation/environmental NPOs, the USF&WS, etc. WP:ATD is where one can find the proper procedure that applies in this case in lieu of mass prodding and nomming all these articles independently at AfD: If a number of similar articles are to be nominated, it is best to make this a group nomination so that they can be considered collectively. This avoids excessive repetition which would otherwise tend to overload involved editors. You neither attempted to first discuss anything with article creator MONGO, nor did you start a discussion at the respective article TPs. You took it upon yourself to prod and nom 10 individual articles, and even worse, you were planning to add, what – 8 more if an administrator had not stepped in? Your premise for this AfD is that it "Fails GNG/GEOLAND due to lack of significant coverage." And that is the problem – you are applying SIGCOV which is not applicable per the SNG for geographic features operate according to principles that differ from the GNG. There is enough verifiable content in all of these articles, and it is verifiably sourced. If you don't like the sources, take it to RSN, not AfD, or start an RfC on the article TP. CONTN also applies here, and further refutes your argument as does our deletion policy because (a) none of the articles you nommed and/or prodded violate a single WP policy, (b) all of them pass WP:V policy, (c) they are cited to sources that provide verifiable content, although more could be added but that's a content issue, and why I suggested going to the article TP, not AfD. The 2 arguments to delete have no standing. Atsme 💬 📧 03:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ovinus (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice findings. If nothng else, the best thing about this is these stubs can all be enhanced and after I complete some work on an FA that is being reviewed I shall endeavour to spend most of my wiki time doing so.--MONGO (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooops, one of them is about a different lake. Sorry MONGO. Ovinus (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Still, contunued efforts by folks like yourself demonstrate that there are still more details that enhance the notability of these features.--MONGO (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, yeah. Hopefully the issue of geostub mass creation (which I think this article came from?) will be discussed at the ArbCom-mandated RfC. My current thinking is that they should only be mass created (say, idk, >=1/day) when there is a strong community consensus to do so, given a few samples. That would avoid future problems like this one. While I'm sympathetic to the nom's concerns over encyclopedic quality, I don't think these particular geostubs are the slag of our foundry. The Carlossuarez stubs, on the other hand, must be extirpated. Anyway, that's immaterial to this discussion. Ovinus (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a mass creation effort at all nor using any automated script to produce them. I'll be working to get more geo-stubs on better footing.--MONGO (talk) 00:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Alan Moss[edit]

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

Not notable. The only source is a book by him, Google Search, Google News, and Google Books do not return any independent reliable sources DinoInNameOnly (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Not notable, I searched a couple databases and Google. Couldn't find anything about him other than he's a medical doctor and wrote a book. If someone finds something could they ping me and let me know how they found that material. Not trying to put a burden of proof on anyone or be a jerk but if someone finds something in a novel way I would be super interested to learn about it because it would be super impressive. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 05:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure if this is the same Robert A Moss, but if so it would be good to take his research into account. He appears to have a substantial number of citations in fields related to ADD like behavioral psychology, pediatrics, etc. Chagropango (talk) 07:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's a different Robert Moss who's a psychologist.[26]--Jahaza (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and Michigan. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not finding any sources about him and only one book review (Library journal - brief). He has written one book, possibly a very useful book, but that's not enough for an article. The book has been cited only about 2 dozen times (since 1990), and has all of 5 user reviews on Amazon. Lamona (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 16:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grizzly Bear Lake[edit]

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

Fails GNG and GEOLAND due to lack of significant coverage. Aside from topo maps and GNIS, the only source is a passing mention in a climbing guide which is not sufficient to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 05:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wyoming. –dlthewave ☎ 05:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes WP:GEOLAND, it is a named geographical feature with sources. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 05:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Listed on GNIS and USGS Topo maps as a placename important enough to have mention. While not of great notability there is NO HARM in keeping as the article suffers none of the other criteria. For the record I am an inclusionist. dlthewave prodded this article less than a week ago and now sends it to Afd after I have provided additions to it which seem to meet GEOLAND.--MONGO (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dr vulpes is correct. Lightburst (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GEOLAND, which says The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography.. Here we have an article with 2 lines and 3 sources after 10 years. It seems evident and searches bear out that there is not enough verifiable content here for an encyclopaedic article. It doesn't even get sufficient notability for a mention in the parent Grand Teton National Park and that is where editors should concentrate their efforts before spinning the information out into a new article. The keep !votes above do nothing to explain why this is notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The stubs are daughter articles of Grand Teton National Park which is an FA. There is no way it would remain a FA if we went and added these details for every single lake, mountain and other item found in that park...thats WHY we have daughter articles. While some of the details may seem scant, they are still worth keeping because if they do not reside in standalones, the information wont easily exist on this website at all.--MONGO (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If they were daughter articles, they would (a) be actual articles and not 2 line stubs and (b) be mentioned in the parent article. This is the problem you have here: you have spun off every feature of the park into stubs that can never be encylopaedic articles, but you could write an encylopaedic daughter article that brought them together. For instance Lakes of the Grand Teton National Park, or Trails... or Important sights of...
      Wikipedia is an encylopaedia, and every article is meant to be encylopaedic. Stubs are fine if the subject of the stub is notable and just waiting for someone to write the article, but they are not fine when a full article is impossible because the granularity is so fine that there is nothing much to say!
      I am not saying you cannot mention Grizzly Bear Lake anywhere on Wikipedia. I am saying that the interested reader is best served if the mention of it is in the context of an encyclopaedic article, and not a 2 line stub that tells them nothing at all. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Four sentences currently, not two...simple math. I could break up the last one into a fifth if need be. There is probably potential to add even more. You are certainly entitled to think that this article is not even WP:STUB grade, even though that is patently incorrect. There is NO REASON nor has there ever been to list what are maybe 30 lakes in the park main article as that would make it not a FA and I would be told to "create" stubs or daughter articles. I certainly appreciate the lecture, "Wikipedia is an encylopaedia, and every article is meant to be encylopaedic" as I had not know this before and am now enlightened.--MONGO (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      My pleasure. :) And I said it was 2 lines, not 4 sentences. I appreciate the number of lines may alos vary depending on how wide your browser is. But again, arguments made at AfD should be about the notability of the subject. Anyone telling you to split a large article into multiple stubs that cannot be expanded into encyclopaedic articles is telling you wrong. If you have an article that is unworkably large, you would split the article in ways that made the spun of material encylopaedic articles in their own right too. 30 lakes is not so much, tbh. You could do that article, and if you found that suddenly you had a huge geology section making it unworkable, you would then perhaps spin off "Geology and hydrology of ..." And what you end up with is something that is much more useful.
      You are not wrong to want to have articles about these lakes. The question is how to make the article in such a way that it is genuinely useful and encyclopaedic. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sirfurboy, I sincerely hope that you will be taking something positive away from these discussions because the arguments you are making are irrelevant to AfD as applicable to protected areas and named natural features, among a few other PAGs. MONGO, whose work has been targeted in this mass deletion attempt, happens to be an editor with 12 FAs under his belt, a half-million award, and creator of over 1200 articles. I'd say he has been around the block a few times. Anyway, as I've tried to impress upon you, the NGEO page banner clearly states (my bold underline): Places with nationally protected status (e.g. protected areas, national heritage sites, cultural heritage sites) and named natural features, with verifiable information beyond simple statistics are presumed to be notable. We also have WP:NEXIST, which squelches your source argument; proper sources have been cited and others exist. WP:SNG clearly states Some SNGs have specialized functions: for example, the SNG for academics and professors and the SNG for geographic features operate according to principles that differ from the GNG. I'll go another step further with WP:CONTN: Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. Your comment about this article's 3 lines is irrelevant at AfD because (a) the current material is more than simple statistics, and (b) being a stub does not effect notability. HTH Atsme 💬 📧 22:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we can take the ad hominem lines to my talk page if you like. The only question here is whether the article meets notability guidelines. As I said to you elsewhere, You are quoting from the "this page in a nutshell" from WP:NGEO. To be clear, no one here disputes that Grand Teton National Park is notable, so no need to quote that part. So the relevant text is named natural features, with verifiable information beyond simple statistics are presumed to be notable. but the page goes on to give guidelines for what constitutes verifiable information, and so, on that same page, in the exposition - rather than the nutshell guide - gives us WP:GEOLAND which I quoted. What does the nutshell mean by "verifiable information beyond simple statistics"? We read that The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. And again, WP:NEXIST is not relevant. I have not said that the sources must be in the article. I have said I have found no evidence that sufficient sources exist anywhere for a standalone article on Grizzly Bear Lake. AfD is a discussion, (and I have been in one or two discussions in the past!) and my view is that there is a lot of sense in having some kind of article that brings all the lakes or sites/sights or whatever together into a single encyclopaedic article. I just think there are better ways to do this then to make all these stubs all over the place that no one touches for years, no one reads and no one benefits from. It is clear you care about the fact that this information is on Wikipedia somewhere but wouldn't it be better in some more encylopaedic article? Grizzly Bear lake does not meet the notability guidelines, and this is just dancing around the subject.
    I have said my piece and will leave it there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it has passed WP:NEXIST from the get-go, and also passes NGEO – the same argument applies here that applies to multiple other prodded and/or nommed articles by this same user as follows:
  1. Dudley Lake (Teton County, Wyoming)
  2. Young Man Lake
  3. Bearpaw Lake (Teton County, Wyoming)
  4. Forget-me-not Lakes (Wyoming)
  5. Bearpaw Lake (Teton County, Wyoming)
  6. Holly Lake - prod reverted
  7. Cirque Lake (Teton County, Wyoming)
  8. Coyote Lake (Teton County, Wyoming)
  9. Delta Lake (Teton County, Wyoming) - prod reverted, more info added
  10. Bradley Lake - prod reverted
The nom could've started a discussion with the article creator FIRST, and maybe tagged the articles with a more sources needed tag. Atsme 💬 📧 17:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Broad consensus here that the independent reviews cited help it pass the GNG. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cautionary Tales (Heroes)[edit]

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

Notability has been challenged (not by me). This article consists of a plot recap w/ a couple of one sentence reviews hastily added as a token gesture toward passing GNG. The very thinness of coverage IMO argues against notability. What about this particular episode makes it worthy of an article? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Television. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Well at least this one has four sources, two of which are from the TV network, the other two are slapped on the end to pass GNG. Also open to redirecting to the list of episodes like it should have been all along. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 05:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing in this meets WP:N. The sources are not WP:RS for purposes of notability, being just from entertainment sections of a couple of websites (one is an 'online newspaper' but still doesn't pass muster) and 2 from the network. Even if these did suggest notaility, it would be notability of the series. Individual episodes of a series can't be notable unless there is something specific in them that makes them notable beyond the series itself - something that gets people talking - otherwise it is just fan cruft. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep. No point nominating a single episode for deletion when every episode has an article. Either nominate them all or none of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, I would nominate them all for deletion right now- except how? Individual nominations in one go are no better than doing them one at a time - indeed may be best avoided as they can trigger a referral to ANI. If I nominate one and name the whole series, notices are not placed on each page in the series. I cannot find an essay on how to nominate multiple articles at once. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm convinced that 90% of the individual episode articles on WP could be deleted w/ nothing of value being lost. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have researched the issue today and found that a forthcoming RFC will look at deletion at scale, but no deletion at scale currently exists. I therefore believe this "procedural keep" should be struck. There is no such procedure and so we are forced to do these one at a time. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course there is. See WP:MULTIAFD. There are many mass nominations at AfD, so you are certainly not "forced to do these one at a time". -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Episode has 2 reviews. What is the point of ignoring reviews from RS, despite what other editors claim that they are not RS. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Any TV show gets reviews but where is the evidence that the episode is notable? see WP:NEPISODE Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It really depends on what TV show we're talking about. There's some that gets several reviews for every single episode, and with others, you would be hard-pressed to find even one or two reviews for most episodes. MoonJet (talk) 06:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Two reviews is notable. NEPISODE doesn't trump the GNG, and in fact actually supports this: "Multiple reviews or other reliable, independent, non-trivial commentary demonstrate notability for a television episode." Jclemens (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The GNG is that coverage must be significant and independent. TV shows get reviews on webzines is certainly not significant and the NBC links are not independent. WP:NEPISODE is written specifically to address what is meant by the GNG on that score. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That policy is known as WP:SIGCOV and I believe if we started enforcing it more, a lot of these "hey, look, I got my plot recap into WP" articles would disappear. A lot of editors conveniently forget that there's more to notability than just WP:GNG. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NEPISODE is not policy, it is an essay and does NOT supersede WP:GNG, which IS policy. Also, the reviews cited are not from "webzines", they are acceptable reliable sources. Try not to use essays as part of deletion discussions as they have no bearing and are just the opinion of the essay writer. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, GNG is not a policy, but rather a guideline, leaving a bit more room for flexibility (for example, an article can still pass, even if it doesn't follow the exact letter of the guideline, and even if an article does pass it, doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't be redirected or deleted). That being said, I'm in agreement with Jclemens in keeping the article for the two in-depth reviews. So, yeah, NEPISODE is merely advice, rather than an actual guideline like GNG is. MoonJet (talk) 06:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Strong consensus that individual is notable (non-admin closure) ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 16:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell Frost[edit]

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

Maxwell Frost

Political candidate who does not meet political notability as a candidate, and does not meet general notability based on the text of this article. The references have not been checked in detail, but an article should speak for itself, and this article does not provide evidence of significant coverage of the subject. Subsequent coverage between now and November 2022 will probably be about the campaign, and so will not be considered to satisfy general notability. This article largely reads like a campaign brochure. If the campaign-related material were removed, not much would be left that is not already covered in 2022_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Florida#District_10. There is also a draft which is almost identical to this article, so that draftification is not an alternative to deletion. Redirection is an alternative to deletion, and is recommended. I have not unilaterally redirected the article in order to avoid edit-warring, and because I am requesting a community decision. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong disagree. Now that Frost has won the primary he will almost certainly be elected to Congress. There are news articles mentioning him dating back to 2013. Several of the citations discuss him in detail, apart from just the election. Also, this article was based on the page in draftspace - see the history. Brad (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He may become sufficiently notable, but he isn't yet. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This has now been settled since Frost won his primary election in a solidly partisan district and will be in Congress in a few months. His win was covered across the country and in several national media outlets. Because of his age and background, he has received substantial WP:RS coverage. He has met Wiki notability standards. Even a cursory Google search will easily resolve this AFD debate. Go4thProsper (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the argument, but for all intents and purposes, being the nominee of a party in a safe district for that party is functionally no different from having been elected to an office and not having assumed it yet. The idea that this article should be deleted and posted again in two and a half months because then he'll more strictly meet the definition of notability seems pointless to me, and in any case, Frost has received enough press coverage to meet the second criteria for notability, including articles from NPR, Politico, USA Today, The Hill, Business Insider, and ABC News. ChicagoCinephile (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'm adding in some of the numerous sources coming out today after his victory. The sources linked above by ChicagoCinephile already establish plenty of notability as well.--Cerebral726 (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he's received a ton of attention from numerous mainstream media outlets. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a notable candidate with significant endorsements. --Fadesga (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Significant coverage that a WP:BEFORE would have shown you, invalidates the claim that he does not have general notability. The first sources that come up are CNN, NBC, The Washington Post, and CBS among others. Trillfendi (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable as he won the primary and will likely win in November. JayJayWhat did I do? 20:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable as he won his primary and is the favorite to win in the fall. --User:brholden (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The coverage his campaign has received extends far beyond mere WP:ROUTINE campaign coverage. The significant coverage he's received in numerous national WP:RS-compliant sources is enough to pass criterion #2 of WP:NPOL, and the historical nature of his primary win arguably passes the ten-year test as well. Sal2100 (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As others have noted, he is notable in that he will almost certainly be elected to congress in November, and this article also details his previous work. -Mad Mismagius (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep This isn't even close. He is already has heavy coverage due to the fact that he will be the first Gen-Z member of Congress. There is literally zero chance of him losing this election. Frankly, a speedy close is in order here. Safiel (talk) 05:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he's got a lot of support.--MELT1917 (talk) 07:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, subject has received a large amount of national media coverage clearly in excess of what the average candidate receives, therefore he passes WP:ROUTINE. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per copious rationales above. Andre🚐 18:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is difficult to swim upstream as local consensus can trump core understandings of how we ought to (and have) treat political candidates. The nominator is correct on policy and past practice - being a nominee of a party in the United States is not sufficient to pass WP:NPOL and campaign coverage is generally seen as WP:ROUTINE. (And there are many reasons for that, largely that all candidates receive a medium of coverage and there is a tendency of campaign supporters to use Wikipedia as a campaign brochure). It happens with some frequency that a "sure" winner does lose (see some of the WP:CRYSTAL comments about India Walton, who ended up losing her election). The notability of this subject is that he would, if elected be the youngest member of the next Congress and has received a fair amount of coverage about that point, but the (one to two day) flurry of coverage about being a young nominee would probably would not pass the WP:10YT if the subject were to lose. --Enos733 (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's precedent for keeping articles of soon to be presumed notable politicians: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassandra Fernando, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda White (politician). In those two cases, the election that would make them notable was less than three weeks away (at the time of the AfD discussion). Donald Payne Jr and Trent Kelly were created prior to election in safe districts, one was subject to a redirect before the election, the other not. This person will (almost certainly) have presumed notability in a little more than two months; does going through the process of deletion and then recreating the article make the encyclopedia better? A dose of IAR might be worth applying here. I admit, less clear cut than an election less than three weeks away, though... Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that each of these situations are distinct. In the case of the Australian politicians, the individuals were on top of their party list and nearly assured of election because of the voting system (and the election was a couple weeks away when nominated). Kelly was redirected until the election (contested). Payne was not taken to AFD, but was currently serving as Council President of Newark at the time of the election and running to fill the remainder of his father's term of office (not taken to AFD, but I suggest a strong case would have been made for GNG coverage prior to the campaign). The point is there is no consensus for keeping candidates who win a party's nomination for US Congress, and the usual (and appropriate) outcome is a redirect to the election page until the election. Those candidates that are kept are kept for other reasons, usually because they defeat an incumbent in a party primary in the US, receive international coverage of their campaign, or there is a strong showing that the subject might meet GNG before their campaign. I would also note that a redirect could be used to preserve the content, and could be flipped after the election. - Enos733 (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Linda White was assured of the seat by being the first candidate of the party's list, but Cassandra Fernando was simply the party's candidate of a historically safe seat for the party. Both of these candidates had essentially no media coverage and therefore no general notability, whereas Maxwell Frost clearly does. Those deletion discussions don't provide any precedent, as they became elected while the AfD was taking place. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In the case of the Australian politicians, only one related to a party list, but the point is both were in positions which meant it was all but certain they would be elected. Are there reasonable grounds to doubt Frost will be elected? If so, then grounds for deletion/redirection are stronger, if not, then weaker. I'm not sure consensus can be claimed for any particular approach towards soon to be presumed notable politicians. However, it does seem that rule-following for the sake of rule-following that does not produce a positive net result, is precisely the point of applying IAR. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 08:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also the hypothetical possibility of withdrawal, disqualification and death prior to the election. I don't think the upcoming likely notability of a subject is reasonable to justify the creation of an article, especially when it could be created upon the subject actually becoming notable. However, there is clearly a loophole to this where there can be an article for a yet-to-be-notable political candidate as the AfD process can reasonably last for weeks, which is a reasonable implementation of IAR. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For me, the "loophole" should only exist within the last 14 days before an election, not 70+ days. I do completely agree with you that the justification of keeping an article about an unelected political candidate must be based on significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, rather than the likelihood of winning an election. I have spelled out more of my criteria for political candidates here (comments welcome) - Enos733 (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The subject of the article has since become notable regardless of the upcoming election result, as their strong media coverage demonstrates general notability. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Already has plenty of RS coverage and there is ample precedent for having articles for candidates who won a primary that is tantamount to election. Davey2116 (talk) 06:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CoPilot (company)[edit]

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

Company does not appear to meet WP:NCORP; I can find a lot of sources that cite reports made by the company, but no independent, in-depth coverage about the company itself that would be required to make the company notable. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For some context, I wanted to create a disambiguation page for CoPilot because I searched for CoPilot looking for Github's ML coding engine and it redirected me to an aviation page. I wanted to make sure there wasn't anything else so I searched "copilot npr" just to see if there was anything else that was being left out. I found a media page but no mention of npr so I searched "copilot npr car" and it brought up an NPR story. They were also referenced by Newsweeks, CNBC, and CNN as an authoritative source of pricing information. I think notability concerns mentioned about would be limited to significance of coverage because they are independent, nationwide media sources (reliable, check. secondary source, check.)
I would put forth that they unambiguously meet the significant coverage standard. Consider the following: "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." I could speculate about how they make money but they aren't offering a physical product. Their product is the data they collect and analyze. If consensus could be reached about that fact, it becomes clear that these sources are discussing, surveying and providing commentary on the product. Within the article they treat the information as authoritative which is implicit commentary about the reliability of the product.
Additionally, I can't say that the coverage sinks to the level of trivial coverage. In the context of sourced coverage, I would consider a brief mention to be noting that X company has released X report as they do at X interval and maybe even highlighting an interesting factoid. In contrast, X motivates the main premise of the story. For example, in the Newsweek article the report is reference 5 times I think. In every case the credibility of the story's headline comes into question without discussion of the product. Here's how I would invite the significant coverage standard to be applied where there is doubt about significance: Is the coverage material to the story?
This standard creates a bright line: presupposes every trivial coverage example and elucidates the non-trivial. In every example of trivial coverage you could also follow it up with "and so you can remove the coverage without material changing the article or undermining the main thesis of the story."
Anyways just my two cents.
Brad Thomas Hanks (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NewsWeek post-2013 may not a reliable source. Even if it were, the NewsWeek article, while it arguably contains in-depth coverage, fails the other criterion of "Independent Content", as every mention of CoPilot is to attribute some claim to it or its founders. The CNBC article has the same problem. The other sources are just passing mentions. Finally: the aviation term is the primary topic for "copilot", and it already has a hatnote to Co-pilot (disambiguation), which links to GitHub Copilot so there should be no confusion there. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 07:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete despite the diatribe above, the sources are unconvincing. Run of the mill non-notable company. PICKLEDICAE🥒 13:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see how this company is particularly notable. Not every company needs a page, and I don't see a reason to keep this one. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore NCORP guidelines apply. I can't find any references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 21:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysoula Zogia Museum and Art Gallery[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. could not find significant coverage in either English or Greek. LibStar (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No sources, other than wikipedia mirrors and social media links. Oaktree b (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Devils Moonshine[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND not covered in reliable sources. No singles or albums have charted nationally. Available coverage is promotional in nature and does not discuss the topic significantly and in depth.---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NALBUM not covered in reliable sources. The recording has not appeared on any country's national music chart. The recording has not been certified gold or higher in at least one country. Available coverage is promotional in nature and does not discuss the topic significantly and in depth. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem has been fixed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Virgin Steele discography as is usually done for lesser-known albums. This one got a little pre-release publicity as seen in the Blabbermouth article that is already cited, but then it came and went with little outside notice except for occasional blog-like reviews at sites like Metal Observer (which I am not allowed to link here because it's blacklisted). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Astig's list of sources. QuietHere (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented by Astig. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rough consensus here among those who have engaged with the sources is that this supposed military engagement, in which several British warships are said to have been sunk, in all likelihood did not happen. Contributors point out that while there are sources attesting to this engagement, the fact that no British records or most modern historical sources reflect it makes it likely that the previously mentioned sources are mistaken. I recommend mentioning the uncertainty surrounding this supposed engagement in an appropriate related article instead. Sandstein 06:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Vietnamese conflict (1808)[edit]

Anglo-Vietnamese conflict (1808) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot verify that these events actually happened, and find it strange that a failed action in which several ships were lost is absent from Royal Navy accounts or from any references concerning Admiral Drury. I checked the Lamb reference and the pages referenced did not even relate to 1808, much less any action like this. I've brought Laska666's conduct up at ANI. Acroterion (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Vietnam. Acroterion (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an odd one. A Google books search throws up several books from reputable publishers containing the story. They all seem to go back to Maybon (1906) "Les Anglais à Macao en 1802 et 1808" p314, which in turn takes it from Histoire générale du IVe siècle à nos jours, v. 10 Les monarchies constitutionnelles (1815-1847) (1898) p992. Maybon also cites the Guo Chao Rou Yuan Ji (國朝柔遠記) describing three kinds of English ships, which seems to have been garbled in later references as saying only three ships reached Macau. Kanguole 12:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Although Maybon gives a reference to Histoire générale, he attributes the account to Cordier. The Histoire générale gives among its sources on Annam (p1008) Henri Cordier, Le Consulat de France á Hué sous la Restauration, Paris, 1884. So that seems to be the origin. Neither Maybon nor Histoire générale have the 6 or 7 ships bit, though, just a mention of burning. Kanguole 20:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the fleet described here is probably the 1808 expedition led by Drury to occupy Macao - it is mentioned very briefly in Battle of the Tiger's Mouth. The contemporary sources on this expedition do not mention any fighting en route, however (ref). There is a detailed modern paper here which jumps straight to the fleet arriving at Macao without mentioning any unusual events en route. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A bit of poking around turns up this paper (1988) from the same authors as the cited Paths to Conflagration - "In 1808, 10 vessels of war, which were sent against Macao by Lord Minto, Governor General of India, disengaged themselves from the expeditionary fleet and sailed towards Tonkin to intimidate the Hue Court. Vietnamese junks forced their retreat and 6 or 7 vessels were destroyed by fire. The survivors who arrived in Macao, were piteously hunted down by Chinese troops sent from Canton.".
    In the paper, this is cited to the Crawfurd Papers - but explicitly "the preface of Henri Berland in the French edition", rather than the text itself, and I wonder if that preface ultimately comes from the same French sources that @Kanguole mentions. The same material is covered in Paths to Conflagration (1998) with slightly different wording and no specific source given. I cannot find mention of it in any contemporary British sources, though. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't find any Royal Navy losses in the area in Royal Navy Loss List complete database. If it happened I wonder if the vessels were East Indiamen? Nthep (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That would make sense - though there doesn't seem to be any mention of it in the various Indian papers digitised on BNA. It might also be a bit of an inflation for six boats being lost, which might be more likely to go unrecorded... Andrew Gray (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, the "piteously hunted down by Chinese troops sent from Canton" part is completely wrong: Drury's Macao expedition was a debacle, and he was confronted by Chinese troops, but he withdrew without bloodshed, reporting only one injured sailor. Kanguole 08:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mikaberidze, p. 488, mentions the conflict: "the Vietnamese fought back, destroying several of Drury's ships". Srnec (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Srnec Thanks - that has (as far as I can work out from Google Books) a footnote pointing to Morse's Chronicles of the East India Company III:87. This is here and while it does talk about the Macao expedition, it doesn't seem to discuss any raids on the Vietnamese coast en route. A bit of a mystery still! Andrew Gray (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Mikaberidze's citations for this paragraph are:
    • Christopher Goscha, Vietnam: A New History (New York: Basic Books, 2016), 41–46;
    • David Joel Steinberg, ed., In Search of Southeast Asia (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1987), 128;
    • Maybon, "Les Anglais à Macao" 313–15;
    • Alastair Lamb, The Mandarin Road to Old Hué: Narratives of Anglo-Vietnamese Diplomacy from the 17th Century to the Eve of the French Conquest (London: Chatto & Windus, 1970), 175, 189–95.
    Of these, only Maybon seems to mention Drury. Kanguole 21:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kanguole Amazing, thankyou! Finding the endnotes was tricky in preview mode :-) I had had a look at Steinberg and was working out if I could get Goscha in the library tomorrow, but if you've been able to check them all then that's great. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The incident is mentioned in passing on p. 45 of Hia Sieh's Si-chung Ki-shï, translated by Edward Harper Parker.
    Chronicles of the East India Company III:71 says that Thomas Manning went to Annam in February 1808 in the company of Jean-Marie Dayot as an envoy of the Company. I have no idea if this is related in any way to Drury's diversion. Srnec (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This mention in the Zhōngxī Jìshì (中西紀事) of Xia Xie (夏燮; 1800–1875) is indeed very brief – "the English Admiral Drury returned defeated from Annam, and [...] renewed his designs on Macao" – but it is a distinct source from Maybon/Cordier. Kanguole 08:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obscure, certainly, but not a hoax. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Delete Commendable research above digging out these sources. If I interpret this correctly, most sources only give a passing mention that circle back to the one Maybon source. Other sources dealing with Drury's Macao expedition often omit this incident all together. This may have happened but does not seem to be enough to pass WP:EVENT or just WP:GNG. Happy to be set right if I'm misunderstanding here. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify – If the article is not ready for article mainspace, it can always be improved in draftspace. Suasufzeb (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per my comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Anglo-Vietnamese_conflict_(1808) this certainly seems to have happened. Alexander Mikaberidze cited in the article is a reliable source. He has this to say on the conflict: "By 1808 the British were concerned that Napoleon might exploit Franco-Vietnamese ties to establish himself in southeast Asia where he might help the Nguyen ruler build a navy that could threaten British trade in the South China Sea. Drury's mission was to prevent this from happening. Arriving in the Gulf of Tonkin, Drury tried to sail up the Red River to strike against the Vietnamese navy and force Gia Long to compromise. Yet the Vietnamese fought back, destroying several of Drury's ships and forcing the main body of the British squadron to sail on to Macao. After this setback the British made no further attempt to intervene in Vietnam until 1822". Mikaberidze cites Papers regarding the combined Naval and Military Expedition sent from India to Macao in September 1808 to forestall a possible French occupation which the National Archives website says is held by the British Library under ref number IOR/F/4/307/7025, though only available in person, if someone wanted to check that - Dumelow (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Mikaberidze cites IOR/F/4/307/7025 in two places:
    • n. 57, at the end of a paragraph about British thinking on a possible French threat to Macao, and
    • n. 62, attached to a sentence about British views of how the Chinese might react to their occupation of Macao.
    That is, not regarding the Annam venture, the above account of which is embedded in a long paragraph filled with historical context, to which he attaches n. 63 (citing Goscha, Steinberg, Maybon and Lamb, as above). Kanguole 08:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh, that is really interesting. So it seems plausible Drury (et al)'s report didn't mention it either? In which case it seems very likely Mikaberidze's sole source for this was Meybon. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Another source: Wakeman, Frederic (10 March 2009). Telling Chinese History: A Selection of Essays. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-25606-4. page 363 says: "Lord Minto sent an English squadron into East Asian waters under the command of Vice Admiral Drury, whose first mission was to try to force the Gia Long emperor of Annam to open Hanoi to English trade. He failed to do so after Annamese junks burned and destroyed several of Drury's ships sent up the Red River, forcing the main body of the squadron (now consisting of a ship of the line, a frigate and a sloop) to sail on to Macao. This botched military effort in Indochina did not go unoticed by the Chinese, who believed that Drury was intent upon taking Macao precisely because he had failed in Hanoi"; I am viewing in Google Preview so cannot see his endnotes. If there is an account of what vessels Drury left India with we may be able to tell what was lost from the three survivors listed here (assuming this is correct) - Dumelow (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dumelow: This chapter is a reprint of a 2004 paper in East Asian History. The above passage occurs on p30, and is cited to Maybon. The number of three ships is cited to the Guo Chao Rou Yuan Ji (國朝柔遠記), apparently also via by Maybon, but in Maybon's account it is a description of three types of ship in the English navy. Maybon also translates the Rou Yuan Ji saying that Drury went for Macao in compensation for failing to seize Annam. This appears to be a Chinese misconception – other sources (including Maybon) make clear Macao was the objective from the start. Kanguole 09:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The passage of the Rou Yuan Ji is here. It says that Drury left Bengal on a mission to Annam with ten warships of three types, that he failed in Annam (no details given), and then moved to seize Macao as compensation. Kanguole 10:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An obscure bit of history, but notably nonetheless. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – impact and coverage are insufficient to meet WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. Several respectable sources say that William O'Bryen Drury unsuccessfully attempted a show of force at Hanoi en route to his (well-documented) occupation of Macao in 1808. However, they are all variations on the same brief account, which can be traced back to Maybon (1906) p314, quoting Henri Cordier. User:Srnec has found a terse mention in the Zhōngxī jìshì (中西紀事) by Xia Xie (夏燮; 1800–1875), translated here. No mentions of this diversion have been found in contemporary British sources (e.g. Morse's Chronicles of the East India Company), though they do cover the Macao debacle. (One would think that Drury losing two-thirds of his squadron on the way to his main objective would be relevant.) This is not a hoax, but might be a myth. Kanguole 13:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Might be a myth, although I am inclined to think that Andrew Gray's suggestiong regarding 'boats' makes sense. In any case, shouldn't the article be kept as a basis for expanding into an article on the Macau expedition? I would happily !vote "merge", but that article isn't written yet. In the meantime, to me, it's a keep. Srnec (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    An article on Drury's Macau expedition would certainly be viable, as that is well covered. If the proposal is to change the topic to that, I'd agree. Kanguole 18:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that would be my proposal. I am strongly opposed to just deleting this article outright on the basis of some Wikipedians' research, although my own look into Manning's correspondence re: Annam in 1808 also yielded nothing of relevance. In fact, it seems to me that optimum use of our own research is to present the event with explicit reference to the primary sources and situate it in the context of the much better attested Macau expedition. Srnec (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This (arguably) adds to the idea this is a myth, as his primary objective was Maco. Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, regretfully - I think "not a hoax, but might be a myth" is a far summary of the situation. Ultimately, we have a number of secondary sources that mention it (eg Mikaberidze), and a number of secondary ones that do not (eg Hariharan & Hariharan). The secondary sources that do mention it ultimately seem to trace back to a group of older Chinese sources via French translations of them; the older & contemporary sources in English have a very distinct gap where any mention of events like this would be.
One of them must be wrong, and I think I'm leaning to the side that if this happened as described, it would show up somewhere in the publicly accessible British sources - but I've drawn a blank everywhere I looked. The East India Company records do not mention it; the Navy does not record the loss of six ships; the regimental histories of the Army units involved do not mention it; the newspapers that reported on the Macao expedition at the time do not mention it; and so on. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not convinced this isn't a myth, if 6 ships had truly been lost that would show up in British records, the fact that nothing can be found undermines the entire claim and WP:BASIC WP:GNG is not satisfied. Mztourist (talk) 08:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    BASIC is about people and is irrelevant here. In any case, we have "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The argument in favour of deletion are OR and completely ignore WP:V in favour of (their own assessment of) truth. Srnec (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The policy argument for deletion is that we don't have the "significant coverage" part of WP:GNG, or the "impact" part of WP:EVENT. Kanguole 20:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to WP:GNG Mztourist (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that no one knows what ships were lost tells me this is either a myth or such a minor incident that it is not worth a stand-alone article. Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I remember doing this when I read Mikaberidze’s The Napoleonic War.

What Mikaberidze’s pp.487-488 convey:

  1. Drury failed to fulfill his first task. What we presently call Vietnam has been historically divided into two: the Trinh lords ruled in the north, while the Nguyen were supreme in the south... French missionary Pierre Pigneau de Behaine raised funds and organized a private venture of several French ships to sustain the Nguyen cause; French-trained military allowed Nguyen Anh to win the war and secure his power by 1802. He was the first to control the whole length of the Indochinese peninsula, and upon assuming imperial title he took the dynastic name Gia Long. The rise of the new dynasty in Vietnam coincided with the outbreak of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars in Europe. Considering the extent of French influence at the court of Gia Long, it is unsurprising that the Royal Navy targeted the French-commanded Vietnamese merchant ships. In 1803–1804, two British envoys sought to convince Gia Long to abandon his alliance with France and open his realm to British trade; both missions failed. By 1808, the British were concerned that Napoleon might exploit FrancoVietnamese ties to establish his presence in Southeast Asia, where he might help the Nguyen ruler build a navy that could threaten British trade in the South China Sea. Drury’s mission was to prevent this from happening. Arriving in the Gulf of Tonkin, Drury tried to sail up the Red River to strike against the Vietnamese navy and force Gia Long to compromise. Yet the Vietnamese fought back, destroying several of Drury’s ships and forcing the main body of the British squadron to sail on to Macao. After this setback, the British made no further attempt to intervene in Vietnam until 1822...

  2. Drury was even more unsuccessful with his second mission. He arrived in Macao in late September 1808 and immediately informed the Portuguese governor, Bernardo Aleixo de Lemos Faria, of his intention to occupy the town in order to protect it from the French. The Portuguese demurred, and the governor, having received no instructions from Lisbon, refused to accept the sanction of the Portuguese viceroy of Goa as sufficient authority for surrendering the place. He also explained that Macao’s protection was the responsibility of the Chinese government, not Britain or the BEIC.}

I found interest in making the event described in Mikaberidze’s book relevant to the twentieth century Indochina Vietnam conflict, considering especially taking Mikaberidze’s narrative and writing down the article uncritically. Laska666 (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BEing inexperienced Wikipedia contributor, it makes sure a lot of time to work with, figuring out what should be and what should not by pitting sources together, and so fault and probation are essential things that I expect to get. But for that article, after reviewing both Maybon and Mikaberidze, I just realized that the main information we expected to have come directly from British/ELC or Vietnam outlets is completely absent, while what cites authors like Maybon used were French and Chinese accounts (perhaps hearsays) and from Chinese chronicles (the Qing Rou Yuanji just reported very (briefly and imprecise) “...in the 13th year [1808], admiral Drury returned defeated from Annam…).

The other British account that is found relating to the event is H.B. Morse's Chronicles of the East India Company, claiming that Thomas Manning went to Hue along with Mr. Dayot (a French refugee) who acted as the head of the English committee to the King of Annam in February 1808, but the story was insufficiently in detail. Other sources are very insufficient and scarce. Considering hearsays are probably inconsistent and less reliable than Royal Navy documents which conflicted with the French and Chinese accounts, therefore the "skirmish" must be highly doubted. And more weird through, almost every book (low profile) that cites the event is written in French dating from the late 19th centuries. Laska666 (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The other issue is both Maybon and Mikaberidze stick the event with the broader ELC expedition to Macao in September 1808 which I really don’t understand how the narrative is being shifted since the two events compared to historical documents, they are outweighedly differen and have nothing correlate to with each other. From there could guess that there may be a 50% chance that the event was a pure junkie nonsensical, and the other possibility that might have happened was some small British ships not commanded by Drury fighting against local pirates around the vicinity of Tonkin rather than against the Vietnamese, at least. The South China Sea at that time was full of pirates controlled by Chinese female banger Zheng Yisao (Ching Shih) who was based out of Hongkong.

Some interesting books about the South China Sea pirates of the 19th century should be ref are Pirates of Empire Colonisation and Maritime Violence in Southeast Asia (2019) by Professor Stefan Eklöf Amirell, and Pirates of the south China coast (1987) by prof. Dian Murray.


It also seems that Maybon was writing some sort of defaming the British while boasting about the French-backed king Gia Long of Vietnam who had signed a protocol with the French in 1787, who knows? Laska666 (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Now I'm convinced that it's sure 100 billion% that no such engagement between ELC and Vietnamese vessels at the Red River been ever occurred in 1808, whatsoever. It was complete nonsense. Laska666 (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: These are my honestly one-hour moderate reexamination and opinion about the issue. Inappropriation and inaccuracy may not be prevented. Laska666 (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • dramatic music notable event if it happened. But did it really happen? suspenseful music intensifies. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Or no consensus, but there's certainly not consensus to delete. Sandstein 08:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chau Nguyen[edit]

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

Fails the WP:GNG. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUD is for companies and organisations not people, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I've amended my !vote accordingly, but the crux of it still stands. --Kinu t/c 20:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since twice the Houston Chronicle has dedicated reports about our subject, one in 2007 and another in 2011, demonstrating its interest to the media, while a Fox News podcast interview with Nguyen, in her capacity as a psychotherapist, on the issue of self-harm, amplifies the evidence supporting notability. Additionally, she gets traction in the news as city-appointed chief strategist for the Houston Area Women’s Center, while also serving on the city's Women’s Commission. -The Gnome (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The interview is with the local Fox affiliate on its newscast, not the national Fox News. The local "top 30" award is simply that, and the information about her appointment to a local organization is a primary source. One should expect coverage of local media personalities and their activities (both during and subsequent to their media careers) within their own markets, and I fail to see how we can legitimately build a WP:BLP based solely on such, especially when most of it is "human interest" pieces such as the Chronicle articles. --Kinu t/c 13:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Human interest" pieces are defined as "feature stories that discuss people or pets in an emotional way." They "present people and their problems, concerns, or achievements in a way that brings about interest, sympathy or motivation in the reader or viewer." I challenge you to offer evidence that either of the two Fox pieces are anything like this - unless, of course, any report about issues such as psychotherapy, self-harm, and others, are automatically categorized as "human interest" stories, i.e. soft news. Which would be a major mistake. Incidentally, a local Fox news outlet, being a subsidiary of Fox Corporation, carries a significant weight as a source of quality.
As to your dismissal of Nguyen's top-30 award as "just that", it's an rather strange argument whose substance I'm unable to fathom. All awards are "just" awards. Two reports from a subsidiary of a major news corporation dedicated solely to our subject, news about her activities beyond journalism, interviews of Nguyen about important social subjects, e.g. self harm, and more, are way over the notability hurdle of WP:GNG. Finally, please note that WP:LOCALINT remains a failed essay . -The Gnome (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't find the two pieces in The Chron to be particularly convincing. Probably fails a strict reading of WP:GNG.-KH-1 (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The articles are about the biography's subject and conform precisely to what Wikipedia's guideline about people's notability demands. (There exists significant coverage in multiple published, secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.) What exactly did you not find "convincing"? They're specifically about Chau Nguyen. -The Gnome (talk) 10:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if I would call that "significant coverage".-KH-1 (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The sources could be stronger but I'd like to see more opinions on whether what sourcing does exist establishes GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I've gone though and added some more sources about her including her winning an Emmy, her work with the Women's Center, and multiple interviews as a social work expert. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 01:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the two Houston Chronicle stories are sufficient to establish notability, but I will note that interviews are considered to be primary sources and are therefore not sources that will show notability, no matter how prestigious the interviewing organization. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify. As it stands, there is little to no opposition to the notion that notability-establishing sources are findable, but the article needs some draft time as it's currently a very poor stub. Necker will be notified of this. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rayleen Bauelua[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have found several print books and offline newspaper articles about the footballer. I'm planning to travel to New Guinea next month and share the sources with you.
Madame Necker (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per comments from Madame Necker. GiantSnowman 20:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per comment above and because article isn't suitable for mainspace currently. Going to WP:AGF here. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Madame Necker. Clearly significant figure in PNG womens and international football who helped Papua New Guinea women win Papua New Guinea's only major trophy, the 2022 OFC Women's Cup. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I finish writing this, another 30 will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per GiantSnowman and Spiderone. Andre🚐 18:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_August_24&oldid=1108228891"