Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 02 January 04 >

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The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian (Gentle Giant album)[edit]

Civilian (Gentle Giant album) (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)

Instagram and blazemonger.com are WP:UGC so this album seems to fail WP:NALBUM. Sikonmina (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NEXIST regardless of Instagram having been used as a source in the article at one point. Geschichte (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, searching I see several possible sources for this significant album by a significant band. Pikavoom Talk 09:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are several sources available constituting significant coverage. Totality of evidence suggests this article meets the GNG and sufficient notability exists. Such-change47 (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough resources that claim its notability. DMySon (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the sources? Sikonmina (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do a quick Google search, you may find a lot of references. DMySon (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NALBUM per above arguments. The sources added to the article by Caro are reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oops, it looks like a made a mistake about this one. I am willing to withdraw my nomination. Sikonmina (talk) 03:58, 5 January 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. Geschichte (talk) 08:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patricio Luna[edit]

Patricio Luna (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:CREATIVE. Created by two SPAs who have been trying to get this into mainspace for a while... a draft was started at Draft:Patricio Luna, then abandoned and the article created directly in mainspace. Regarding the acting career, the only source is a link to iMDb (an unreliable source) which states that the subject only played a bit part in one episode of a telenovela, and wasn't even credited for it. The last source doesn't mention the subject at all – I assume he took the photo in the article, but there's no photo credit, and that wouldn't make him notable. All the remaining sources are in sources which are at first glance reliable, but on further investigation are just the same identical press release/promotional material spammed over various websites, complete with the subject's contact details at the bottom advertising for work. I cannot find any reliable sources at all for this subject. Richard3120 (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per nom, the sources seem to be the same promotional spam. That azcentral.com happens to be part of the USA Today Network doesn't mean that he got a write-up in USA Today. No there there. BBQboffin (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above assessment. No independent coverage in RS.-KH-1 (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG lacks significant coverage on the subject, looks promotional.Juggyevil (talk) 08:11, 6 January 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 05:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gamemode one[edit]

Gamemode one (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 organization that fails to satisfy NCORP as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search turns up nothing but primary sources and social media websites. Celestina007 (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While searching "Gamemode One" directly does not yield significant results, searching "Gamemode One Minecraft" will give results including articles and videos on Gamemode One, as well as companies that are affiliated with Gamemode One. Included are articles mentioning Gamemode One at Microsoft / Mojang / Xbox. Featuring from Bridge [1] Blockbench [2] Gamerant [3] Screenrant and more. Searching for products by Gamemode One also drives results and a vast array of news articles on products including TechRadar [4] RadioTimes [5] and the Metro, Tech Radar, and IGN. ThomasOUK(talk) 23:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Gamemode One". Bridge Editor.
  2. ^ "Blockbench". Blockbench.
  3. ^ "Minecraft Bloom Guide: Everything You Need to Know". Gamerant.
  4. ^ "Sonic the Hedgehog might make me play Minecraft for the first time". Techradar.
  5. ^ Leane, Rob. "Minecraft How to Train Your Dragon DLC: Trailer, price and details for the new Berk pack". RadioTimes.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As per nom, the subject does not satisfy WP:NCORP. DMySon (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources, fails WP:NCORP.Brayan ocaner (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am able to bring in some more references mentioning Gamemode One / Gamemode One products, is there any recommendations you could make that would make it satisfy NCORP? (Conflict of interest registered on user page) ThomasOUK (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't find anything to meet WP:NCORP. No in-depth coverage exists in reliable sources as far as I can see. Samsmachado (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 15:30, 8 January 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Intenso (brand)[edit]

Intenso (brand) (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)

Electronics company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP- lacks coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:19, 3 January 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Coburn[edit]

Michael Coburn (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)

Certainly doesn't meet NFOOTY, having never played in a professional league. Despite some fairly routine coverage like this, I don't think he meets GNG either. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 22:35, 3 January 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. Consensus is clear that the ship is notable due mostly to improvements made during the course of this discussion. Star Mississippi 16:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M/V Amherst Islander II[edit]

M/V Amherst Islander II (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 apparent notability. Super Ψ Dro 22:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the topic is in fact notable, currently its article does not reflect that. I believe expansion of it is required. Super Ψ Dro 16:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if the topic is notable, the article should be kept and improved regardless of its current state. I think the above coverage is sufficient to build a decent, properly referenced stub article. Pichpich (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the vessel is due to come into service in a few months, at which point one would expect more coverage. There's no harm in keeping for now and revisiting during the summer. Mjroots (talk) 16:49, 6 January 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 00:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lane Allen[edit]

Lane Allen (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 can find nothing to confirm notability of this casting director. He was married to Betty White for two years but notability is not inherited through association with a notable person. The article sourcing is very weak, a couple name-check mentions, and a listicle (5 quick facts about Lane Allen, Betty White's Husband). Online all I could find were a few more name-check mentions in tabloids and another listicle. Fails WP:GNG criteria for inclusion unless decent sourcing is discovered. Bringing it here for feedback. Netherzone (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being married to significant people does not make him significant. Not really covered for his own sake. Pikavoom Talk 09:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As someone who leans heavily towards inclusionism on Wikipedia, it's rare for me to vote for deletion. But in this case it's warranted. Notability is not inherited, and the stub-level information in the article does not bode well for his notability in any sense beyond having married Betty White. Moncrief (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can see why he has a Wikipedia page, he was married to two notable actresses, but there are some problems, if someone can add reliable information about him, and expand the lead section, add a few more sections, etc. this should be all good. Unless this article gets improved, i say Delete. In other news, i removed the link from White's and Randy Stuart's article per the nom. Popculturelover2021 (talk) 6:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Comment. He has a Wikipedia page because Betty White died and someone decided to create a page for her second husband. The page didn't exist a week ago. Moncrief (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless somebody can find improved sourcing that establishes notability in his own right as an actor and/or casting director. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so simply having been married to notable people is not an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself, but that's all this article focuses on as written — what we need to see is "passes WP:NACTOR as an actor and/or WP:CREATIVE as a casting director", not just "was married to Betty White for two years seven decades ago". Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject spent half a century in the entertainment industry, with lengthy stints as a casting director, talent agent and actor whose earliest known acting role was in 1940 and his last part was 46 years later, in 1986. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to a large degree — Wikipedia has scores of entries for small-part actors. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of which Wikipedia should have. It's certainly true that we have a lot of bad articles about non-notable actors who aren't reliably sourced as passing WP:NACTOR at all, on the inaccurate grounds that merely listing roles is an automatic inclusion freebie for an actor in and of itself — but the answer to that is to delete those articles about actors who haven't been shown to pass NACTOR, not to keep other articles about actors not properly shown to pass NACTOR. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Each such individual can have his or her day / week at AfD and consensus will ultimately decide if his or her list of credits is sufficient to earn a Wikipedia entry. Depending upon participation and without pointing to this nomination as a typical example, if there is one, it may simply come down to a difference of opinion among inclusionists and deletionists as to the relevant interpretation of WP:NACTOR. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:17, 10 January 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 is that a pure list of people who died is not appropriate for Wikipedia because of WP:OR and notability reasons, but that the topic is better covered in a prose article such as the one being prepared at Draft:Deaths of anti-vaccine advocates from COVID-19 (into which the information in this list has apparently already been integrated). Sandstein 12:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of prominent COVID-19 sceptics who have died from COVID-19[edit]

List of prominent COVID-19 sceptics who have died from COVID-19 (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'm not sure the subject itself is notable enough for a list - I'm sure lots of COVID deniers have died from COVID, but I'm not sure what makes such a list encyclopedic. Does not appear to meet the requirements in WP:LISTPEOPLE or WP:MEDCASE. Singularity42 (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: While this doesn't seem too much of a bad article, it might be better as a category. Dunutubble (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is only to include people who already made it into an article. Could also be a category, yes. Sturmflut (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was just thinking that as I submitted this AfD that a Category might make a lot more sense. Possibly as a sub-category of Category:COVID-19 conspiracy theorists. Singularity42 (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have changed my mind. This is a notable article- I now stand by DMack. I would additionally like to add that the only real problem is the name of the article, not the subject.Dunutubble (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not keep as written but rename or convert to article. My main concern as it stands is the term "prominent". Better would be "notable", then we automatically have inclusion criteria consistent with the rest of our site (I think that is the criterion Sturmflut is proposing). I'm not sure if simply collecting them in a "list of..." (or maybe even via cat) is suitable if we don't have any independent support that this is a known topic or key aspect of them as individuals. As a start, I would want to see a WP article about this as a social phenomenon, but I have no idea what its title should be. The following:
might be enough to establish notability of the topic (there are tons more, these were just the first two fairly-recent in mainstream sources). And "being mentioned in those articles" could be an alternate inclusion criterion for a cherry-picked in-article list. So that would meet both bullet-points of WP:LISTPEOPLE. DMacks (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That might be a good option- This does seem to be an possibly noteworthy topic Dunutubble (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come one. We can have a polite debate/discussion about whether to keep or delete this article without being silly. Of course, that's not what I'm saying! But the fact that a very reputable newspaper (or multiple newspapers) have an article on the subject does not necessarily mean the subject becomes notable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and doesn't always share the same subjects as a newspaper. Yes, reliable sources are needed to support notability of a subject. But newspapers also like to make a point, have an editorial role in reporting, and doesn't automatically equate with a Wikipedia article. It's certainly good evidence of notability. But I stand by my original view that this is trying to just make an ironic point - which newspapers are free to do, but Wikipedia is not. Singularity42 (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The news sources have gone beyond merely making the ironic point, though. There are sources specifically examining the phenomenon of other sources making the ironic point, and the impact of this categorization. Our criteria for inclusion are based on coverage of a subject in reliable sources. We might quibble over the presentation of this phenomenon, but there has to be a policy-based rationale for deletion. BD2412 T 23:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your logical train looks reasonable to me too, but I think it heads deeply into WP:SYNTH rather than WP:BLUE. It's using our own epidemiological/data-collection in order to refute common sceptic positions of "there's no virus" or "the vaccine is useless". So instead, we rely on published sources to define topics of "notability" based on what reliable sources choose to write about. It's not our position to decide therefore they're just filling column-inches with a '2+2=4' editorial. DMacks (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That can be controlled through reasonable editing limitations. I have proposed with respect to the draft that individuals included on that page be limited to those for whom reliable sources specifically reported the connection between the decedant's anti-vaccine activism and their death from COVID (so drawing that relationship is not left to editors). It has been proposed elsewhere that the list be limited to subjects with articles of their own, though I have not yet taken that position. I will be happy to enforce appropriate standards established for the page, and discussion and consensus for any challenged additions to the list. BD2412 T 01:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just to clarify, the "you" to whom I was responding was Singularity42. DMacks (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Much appreciated. I have moved my draft to Draft:Deaths of anti-vaccine advocates from COVID-19, and put a more up-front focus on the phenomenon of these deaths being collected and reported, relegating the list to section. I think that this will be a better approach going forward. There may be some data on the actual effects of this reporting (i.e., does media reporting on anti-vaxxer COVID-19 deaths actually move the needle towards vaccine-hesitant people getting vaccination). BD2412 T 04:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NOR and WP:NPOV as there is no clear definition of a COVID-19 skeptic. The provided sources demonstrate that anti-vaxxers are discussed as a group, but that's not the topic of this article. Renewal6 (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TompaDompa and Renewal6. This article just feels as WP:POINTy as Celebrities who have received the COVID-19 vaccine, which I nominated for deletion, to great success. Love of Corey (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per subjective nature of the article (i.e. what may or may not make someone a "prominent COVID-19 skeptic"). Also per recent AFDs on two very similar articles linked above which closed with overwhelming consensus to delete. Frank Anchor 18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you feel about the alternative term "notable", which has an objective meaning on wikipedia? DMacks (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Notable” is a better choice of words than “prominent,” though I still support deletion of this article Frank Anchor 22:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This general issue is recurring in Wikipedia and I do not know how to access information on other comparable stories. I think there used to be some list for "anti-LGBT+ politicians and leaders known to have same sex lovers" which was deleted, and I think that is a comparable situation. Also I think there was some category or article for "HIV deniers who died of AIDS". I see arguments above that it is original research for Wikipedians to combine stories about "people who oppose X" with stories of those same people doing X. The reason why I think it is okay to have original articles about this is that it even if only some and not all list members are the subject of journalism for their conflicting positions, Wikipedia is the place for this kind of original list compilation. I do not think there is often ambiguity about whether or not someone is a COVID denier or whether someone dies of COVID; we will have sufficient sources to confirm such things. When this discussion progresses I think it should go in a list for some kind of policy or casebook page, because this same discussion will happen again in other contexts. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those examples sound like very blatant WP:Attack pages. TompaDompa (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @TompaDompa: Why? And do you think this page is an attack page? Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your first example inevitably comes across as an attempt to call people out for perceived hypocrisy, and your second example inevitably comes across as an attempt to mock people by juxtaposing their cause of death with their previously held beliefs. The latter also applies to this list. TompaDompa (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dunutubble, DMacks, Clarityfiend, and Bluerasberry: Do you have an opinion on my proposal to merge this into Draft:Deaths of anti-vaccine advocates from COVID-19 (I have already basically merged the list, but am focusing the draft itself on reporting of the phenomenon). BD2412 T 05:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: Yes merge right? And maybe history merge too, if there is not an edit conflict. I think your edits came before all the ones in the draft we are discussing. Why not? It is the same topic. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely support the existance of your draft as an article. I would also support inclusion of an embedded list within it (merging from the nominated stand-alone page) if others feel that the stand-alone list page should not exist. DMacks (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: The draft is well-written and fits the ideal of notability. But I am not sure about merging. Dunutubble (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merging would be okay, but the table needs to be put in alphabetical order and pruned: many of the redlinks don't warrant articles, e.g. canvasser Hartman. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; per WP:POINT and Love of Corey comments above. Spf121188 (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to draft pointed out by BD. @BD2412: why is that doc still a draft? 40 sources, deep analysis, seems complete enough to promote. Hyperbolick (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd rather make sure that the editors who are generally opposed to lists on this topic are satisfied that the coverage in the draft takes it out of this category of concern. There is still more content that can be drawn from sources already in the draft to this end, and more to be found in the literature. BD2412 T 15:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TompaPompa's points. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 14:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The average AFD discussion takes around 7 days. This is the seventh day of AFD nomination. However I personally believe the discussion will last for a longer time. Dunutubble (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dunutubble: It is common for well-contested AfD topics to be relisted, sometimes twice. I would therefore estimate that the average length of an AfD discussion is around 10 days. BD2412 T 18:02, 10 January 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. Withdrawn by nominator Jan 5, but processed incorrectly so it's doing funny things to the AfD page. This is just a procedural re-close with an automated tool to make it work right. Original close statement below. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Nomination withdrawn, as more sources have been added. (non-admin closure) Avilich (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phila (daughter of Seleucus)[edit]

Phila (daughter of Seleucus) (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 royalty, the sole information available concerns the subject's relatives only. No specific acts or accomplishments are recorded, let alone significant coverage that would demonstrate non-inherited notability. Avilich (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, clarify: the lead sentence gives no clue as to geographical context. PamD 08:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The daughter of a king, wife of a second, and mother of a third. The Seluecid empire and Macedonian kingdom over which they ruled were hugely important nations at the time. We should not judge the notability of ancient characters (for whom we have lost most of the information) in the same way as the notability of modern minor celebrities it is easy to find news coverage of, but nobody will care about in 50 years time. In her day, everyone would have known who Phila was and she would have been highly notable. Once notable, always notable. SpinningSpark 13:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is obvious enough that I don't need to say it, but if her importance derives exclusively from family relations, then this fact needs to be addressed in the articles of those relatives, and there is no need for this article in particular to exist. Notability is not inherited. Saying someone is important in its own context has no bearing on notability if no sources that discuss the subject exist. "We should not judge the notability of ancient characters in the same way as the notability of modern minor celebrities" is as meaningless a statement as it gets, since the complete abscence of coverage renders any subject, ancient or modern, non-notable. Avilich (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't badger me; you are right, you didn't need to say it. I can give a recommendation on any basis I like. You have given your opinion, I've given mine. There is no need to start an argument over it. And there is not a "complete abscence (sic) of coverage". Coverage might be poor, but it is not absent. SpinningSpark 15:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article has 4 sentences, 3 of which simply list relatives, and the remaining one just details the circumstances of the marriage. That's nothing about the person itself. She is just a name mentioned in primary sources, and that's all that secondary sources are able to record. Avilich (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Spinningspark the best comment ever ... "We should not judge the notability of ancient characters (for whom we have lost most of the information)". VocalIndia (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VocalIndia: There is some precedent for this keep rationale succeeding at AfD – see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulpia (grandmother of Hadrian), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarquinia (mother of Lucius Brutus), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thymiaterium. It seems that the community generally supports it. It is unbelievable that a person who had an official statue, official holy precint, and official marriage poem by the official court poet did not have enough written about her to support Wikipedia notability. It is just that the passage of time has lost most of it, very possibly through Bishop Cyril inciting a mob to burn down the Library of Alexandria because the chief librarian had the wrong religion, and even worse, the wrong sex. Once notable, always notable, no matter how many books you burn. SpinningSpark 18:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NOTINHERITED is not a policy but, rather, an essay about arguments to avoid. Notability is, in fact, inherited in some circumstances, including amongst royalty. pburka (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". Avilich (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She did gain significant recognition: she was Queen of Macedonia. I'm no royalist, but I still believe that queens of major nations are inherently notable. pburka (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: new source: Women and Monarchy in Macedonia, ISBN 0806132124 has a page long biography of her pp. 182–183. On her ancient notability the source says "Phila, is virtually invisible in literary sources but surprisingly well attested in epigraphic sources", on her importance "she and her personal appointees played some role in the administration of the kingdom." I'll use this source to expand the article in due course. SpinningSpark 16:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your source literally says "Little is known of Phila", "Phila played no significant part in her husband's reign". Checkmate? Avilich (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the usual go-to source for these kinds of people, the Pauly–Wissowa, which is usually extremely straight to the point and tells you right away if a person is important, has nothing non-trivial to say about her either. Avilich (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are, of course, selectively quoting here. The source is much more nuanced than that. That sentence is preceded by "Literary sources suggest that...", ie the very sources already stated from which she is "virtually invisible". That passage follows the description of the Cassendreia inscription which provides evidence that she did indeed have a political role. In other words her absence from literary sources does not prove an absence of power or influence. Your quoted sentence is followed by "her role and that of royal women may have become more institutionalized under the Antigonids but, perhaps because more defined, more limited." Whatever, it still remains a fact that the source found enough to write to fill a whole page and thus counts towards WP:N.
On Pauly–Wissowa, that work was started in the 19th century and took eighty years to complete. Presumably Philo is in volume 19 published in 1938. It is an untenable claim that nothing of significance has been found about the Classical world in the 83 intervening years. My source says that indeed new evidence has been "recently discovered" (2000). SpinningSpark 17:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one selectively quoting here -- it's not a whole page, it's a couple of sentences in a single paragraph (the first and second are about relatives, not her). So what if it's only literary sources? The book itself doesn't contradict their point ("whatever power Phila had", "not surprising or unprecedented"), and the recently discovered inscription offers no sustained, coherent, or even certain narrative that compensates the "virtual invisibility". A Wikipedia article that merely says "this person was the subject of dedicatory inscriptions and statues", or "this obscure person of high rank may have done something not surprising", is indicative of laughably bad standards and reflects poorly on the project as a whole. If you think anything in your source is worth including somewhere, then it makes much more sense to put it in the #Family section of Antigonus Gonatas (from whom she inherits all her notability), rather than in a permastub such as this. Avilich (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you look on page 353, "Index of biographical essays" you will find that the author has defined that section as a biography with the title of "Phila 3". I don't care what you think counts as part of a biography, the reliable source says all of it is. SpinningSpark 20:50, 4 January 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 Pete Townshend#Relationships. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Townshend[edit]

Karen Townshend (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 really my field, but I don't see how she is notable. The references all discuss her only because of the notability of husband. DGG ( talk ) 20:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: M. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Madame Sanctity[edit]

Madame Sanctity (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)

Trivial fictional character that fails WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 20:40, 3 January 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Otana[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:NACADEMIC. The PhD is not enough for notability. It is not clear if the invention is enough or not, but the only reference is a link to the subject's hearing clinic. He has filed for a patent approval which is not enough for notability. Only other source cited is a student blog. Singularity42 (talk) 20:08, 3 January 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 undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 00:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Ingraham[edit]

Roger Ingraham (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:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG. All I can find is an interview. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it has no reviews to speak of:

Moonshine (2006 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arham Abbasi[edit]

Arham Abbasi (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 roles appear to be minor roles - often just casual mentions in sources at best. Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Ravensfire (talk) 18:52, 3 January 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) 19:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Chavez[edit]

Jason Chavez (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 notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshens (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Payne[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Elliott Payne (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 notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshens (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LumoPro[edit]

LumoPro (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: COMPANY notability guidelines especially with respect to adequate sources. Notability template as been on the header for nearly 5 years. Headphase (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Graham, Jefferson (2014-03-02). "LumoPro 180 flash review: Lots of power at half the cost". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31.

      The article notes: "The latest model, the $200 LumoPro LP180, was released recently, and it's a real winner. I bought a model as a backup to have in case my big Canon wasn't working, but I've ended up using the LumoPro more often. It has as much power, recycles in the same amount of time, and is more versatile. The LumoPro has one huge difference from Canon and Nikon flashes. It is manual. You can't just throw the flash on top of the camera and click the shutter. You have to think about what you're doing."

    2. Sorrel, Charlie (2009-03-19). "First Look: Strobist 'Open Source' Flashgun". Wired. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31.

      The article notes: "What makes the [LumoPro] LP120 different from most other products is that it is a community driven project, designed for the consumer. Getting hold of a cheap flash with manual controls is almost impossible — you either need to go for a $500+ model and ignore the bells and whistles, or trawl the second hand stores for older guns (good luck — demand is driving up the prices)."

    3. Sorrel, Charlie (2010-06-02). "Quad-Sync LumoPro Strobist Flash Pops Four Ways". Wired. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31.

      The article notes: "The LumoPro LP160 might be the ultimate Strobist flash. Cheap, powerful and able to talk to pretty much any camera, it offers a great alternative to the $500 top-end flashes from Nikon and Canon for those who want a big light without paying for all the fancy automatic functions."

    4. Sorrel, Charlie (2010-07-04). "Hands-On With the Quad-Sync LumoPro Flash". Wired. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31.

      The article notes: "Build quality is ok. The plastic is lightweight but flexible, so although it isn't as solid as a Nikon speedlight, it shouldn't shatter on impact. Would I buy one? Sure. At $160, it is in range of most photographers, and it works as it should. There are no frills, but a lot of thought has gone into what features have been added. And at the price, you can buy a clutch of LumoPros for the price of one Nikon SB900."

    5. Bracaglia, Dan (2013-07-08). "New Gear: Lumopro LP-180 Quad-Sync Flash. Lumopro's third generation flash unit offers a whole lot of bang for your buck". Popular Photography. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31.

      The article notes: "Other major improvements include a new user interface. The LP-180 is the first Lumopro to offer an LCD on the back, which we found to be extremely intuitive to use. The screen is also a very generous size in comparison to other name-brand flashes."

    6. "Non-proprietary speedlights". Digital Photographer. No. 164. Imagine Publishing. 2015. p. 39. Retrieved 2021-12-31 – via Internet Archive.

      The article contains a few sentences of coverage. The article notes: "Two of the most popular and respected third-party speedlights available are the LumoPro LP180 Quad-Sync Manual Flash (www.lumopro.com), seen here below to the right, ... The LP180 retails in the US for $200 and the distributor in Europe is CameraTools (www.cameratools.nl), who have it listed for €299."

    7. Hillen, Brittany (2015-07-29). "LumoPro LP742 LightSwitch Speedlight Case doubles as light modifier". Digital Photography Review. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow LumoPro to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - While there are certainly plenty of mere Google results out there for Lumopro's products, they are just that- either simple product listings (NOTSTATS/NOTCATALOG), advertisements, or sponsored/supplied review content (COISOURCE); these are not reliable secondary sources imv. Plus, all seven of the listed citations are aimed at individual products, not the company itself. While it's fine for product information to exist within a company article, the company does not inherit notability from its products, events, or people. This article contains all of one sentence about the focus and structure of Lumopro itself. - Headphase (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For now this is an advertisement. If could improve this article with reducing promotional tone and adding reliable references, the subject might be notable and i can change my vote to keep. DMySon (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and most of Cunard's references are product mentions/reviews. Since the topic is the company and not any particular individual product, the product reviews do not assist in establishing notability of the company. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 15:26, 8 January 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. Geschichte (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iking Ferry[edit]

Iking Ferry (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 notability, no WP:RS, clearly paid PR, all signs of undisclosed paid editing. Drewserbs (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly not notable. I feel like it should speedied as unambiguous advertising or promotion. HandsomeBoy (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet notability criteria. Coldupnorth (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources don't seem reliable. If he has won awards, we also need to see reliable citations for it, not just mentions, in which case he may meet WP:MUSICBIO. MartinWilder (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. User:Em-mustapha talk 03:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's not any RS to demonstrate his notability. Brayan ocaner (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — fails to meet our notability threshold as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom.-Xclusivzik (talk) 09:24, 5 January 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. If the account is not compromised, this is a pointy demonstration.(non-admin closure) TrangaBellam (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus[edit]

Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus (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)

Propaganda DTM (talk) 16:33, 3 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Haskins[edit]

William Haskins (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 one source here is not enough to add towards notability, it is a super comprehensive database style source. I performed all the reccomended google searches according to before instructions, and came up with no other sources at all. It was recently decided people are not notable merely for competing in the olympics, they either need to win a medal which Haskins did not, or we need to find additional substantial sources on them, which I have not been able to do. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kind of an unlikely search term, though; how many people are going to be fishing for unknowns who happened to sit in a coxed four the better part of a century ago? Ravenswing 17:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe someone from Belmont, Massachusetts? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rowing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's coxed four, per WP:ATD. <Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG, the only source is a database of the kind excluded from showing notability per WP:SPORTCRIT. I think it highly, highly unlikely that anyone is going to be searching for a not-very-successful rower from a century ago, as opposed to the many other equally-non-notable people with the same name, and as such this is not a plausible search term. I note that this article received a grand total of zero visitors in December 2021 and a monthly average of 11 visitors during 2021, most of whom likely won't have been looking for the Olympian but e.g., bots, webcrawlers, and people searching for other people with the same name. Can accept redirecting but preference is for deletion. FOARP (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No indication of notability. Nigej (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While normally I'd support a redirect, I don't here. After running the internal search function using the wildcard character * to bring up all mentions of a William Haskins on enwiki, we seem to have mentions of a colonial commissioner in Maryland, a couple fictional characters, a video game director, a video game writer (possibly same person), a notable army officer with a similar name (Haskin not Haskins), and this fellow. I don't think we can say that this utterly obscure person is more likely to be the intended search target than any of these others. Hog Farm Talk 19:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's fair enough. Can't really argue with that. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:41, 5 January 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. Consensus is she does not meet notability requirements. Star Mississippi 16:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tala Halawa[edit]

Tala Halawa (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)

Biography of a living low-profile person whose notability stems from a single event (WP:BLP1E). The subject is hardly notable on her own merit, and as such, makes it impossible to provide a neutral point of view. Fjmustak (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD was apparently added to the Pakistan list instead of the Palestine list (common mistake), but glad it brought you here, as it's pretty quiet. --Fjmustak (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Now people with the Palestinian background will have a chance to participate in this discussion there. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. I'm not exactly sure what you see as remarkable though. --Fjmustak (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article has tried to have plenty of news coverage from the Israeli newspapers as well as the international news media like the British newspapers – fairly balanced point of view. Ngrewal1 (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Tried" indeed. No matter how hard the article tries, it's nearly impossible to achieve a balanced point of view here: Israeli newspapers are hardly impartial. The point is that this article is about a living person, who is just another aspiring journalist with very little public info and no notable achievements who's had a single newsworthy event in her life (pretty much spelled out in WP:BLP1E). When the "controversy" section takes up more than 90 percent of the article (including one of two sentences in the lede), then I don't see how this individual merits an article. Had it been some high profile journalist who was embroiled in such a controversy, the discussion would have been very different. --Fjmustak (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – This is an attack page that would have been eligible for speedy deletion if it wasn't nominated here first. Zerotalk 01:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only notable in the sense due to her offensive tweets that led to her firing. The "quite remarkable" vote is just nonsense as no evidence is used to back that vote. Just because the firing and her tweets caused controversy it doesn't mean it passes GNG. There is literally nothing else significant about this person other than her ouster from the BBC. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Alaa :)..! 20:00, 11 January 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Parkman School[edit]

Francis Parkman School (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 primary school. Fails GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The sources in the article fail to establish notability as the coverage just mentions this school as one of many in a mass school closing. I can find no coverage that would indicate this school is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The references in the article are lackluster at best and all I can find is some trivial name drops in school directories. Plus there was a few brief mentions in a couple of news articles about other things. Nothing that would work for notability though. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:18, 5 January 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. While secondary schools are not inherently notable, the addition of reliable, independent sources helps this come close to satisfying the general notability guidelines. After relisting, there is a slight edge in the arguments for keeping the article, but consensus has not been reached. Malinaccier (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St Euphemia College[edit]

St Euphemia College (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)

Secondary schools aren't inherently notable. Especially independently funded ones. So this needs to pass WP:NORG. Which it clearly doesn't since the article only has a single primary reference and I couldn't find anything in a WP:BEFORE that would work for notability. Just a couple of trivial name drops in articles about other things. Adamant1 (talk) 13:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With the SMH references I found above, and these Greek Herald references, and the work done by Grand'mere Eugene, I am prepared to give the article the benefit of the doubt. Aoziwe (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am a major contributor to the article, and have no vested interest, other than I've been working on all schools' Wikipages across Australia. I have today added more references to the article, including content from the respected My School/ACARA website. While there is much content that needs citations, the content that is there is relevant in that it is an independent school in SW Sydney. Rangasyd (talk) 08:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how the one extra ref adds to N. It is a routine ref for any school? Aoziwe (talk) 10:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "My School" website is hosted by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, which is on parity with Ofsted in the UK, or regional Pre-tertiary-education accreditation commissions in the U.S. All these agencies examine the quality of schools, and provide reports of their findings, and schools are required to address any recommendations made for improvement. It's not a "routine" reference, but a reliable source that provides info unique to the school. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we go with it being independent it's still a primary source and essentially a database at that. Since they examine most (or all) the schools in Australia. The reference doesn't even say anything either. It's literally just a couple of info graphic and articles need to be more then trivial, basic facts. So in no way is it usable for notability or anything else really. Except maybe to fill in an infobox, but that's about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are few schools that are notable and this one does not come close. --Bduke (talk) 08:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easily enough sourcing available to meet GNG as with any other secondary school in the western world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. According to WP:NORG The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams. St Euphemia College is a registered charity for tax purposes, a non-profit, and WP:GNG is the required notability standard. It meets GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we go with that, what references are you basing it passing WP:GNG on? Because none of the sources in the article pass it from what I can tell and no one here has provided any that do either. Not even Necrothesp, despite their claim that there's enough sources available for it to easily be notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of notability found by any of the "keep" voters or present in the article. Fram (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've added 4 citations to articles in the The Greek Herald, 2 citations in The Daily Telegraph and one from NEOS KOSMOS. Here's the WP:GNG description of the notability requirement for significant coverage: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Any of thes 7 citations meet that standard, and they are all independent secondary RS. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In need of citations. Relevant as an independent school in NSW. MagentaSwann (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in view of added reliable sources such as Greek Herald and Daily Telegraph for WP:GNG as it is a charity so not applicable to WP:NORG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 09:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it's borderline, but prepared to give this the benefit of the doubt on the basis of the SMH and Greek Herald citations. Deus et lex (talk) 00:27, 6 January 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 13:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Troop Messenger[edit]

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

Sources are mostly download portals and the like, trivial mentions, or articles that quoted the CEO / founder but do not include substantial information about the software. The only one that includes any real detail is the News18 source, (contains a couple paragraphs in an article going over several startup companies). But that is not the multiple independent sources required by WP:GNG. techstory.in has details but is highly promotional and the byline reads 'guest' - likely sponsored content. I've searched and haven't found better sourcing. It's not exactly a reason for deletion, but it is worth noting that the article creator looks like an undisclosed paid editor. MrOllie (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Though i never receive any financial stake for creating this page. i just created this page as i myself using this app. and i liked it. Moreover i also found the subject notable having enough citations from reliable resources. CommanderF1 (talk) 06:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable. It has a dozen sources, mostly reviews of the product, but none of them are from major publications, and I couldn't find anything better in a search. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The last one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:07, 3 January 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. -- Aervanath (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zarahemla[edit]

Zarahemla (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 is hollow on detail in the extreme. Based on the quotations provided on this page, all the Book of Mormon seems to say about this theoretical "city" is that it was set on fire at some point, so the place name is a passing mention at best even within the primary scriptural resource from which this article derives. The "narrative" section of this article largely consists of material unrelated to an actual "city of Zarahemla", and instead contains mentions of the "people of Zarahemla", "land of Zarahemla", "king of Zarahemla", etc., with the final bit about the city supposedly burning being the only direct reference to an actual settlement. The source text does not actually appear to even discuss a theoretical location of said city. I propose that the article be deleted and/or the page redirected to Archaeology and the Book of Mormon. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The above is valid criticism of the current state of the article. However, that's exactly what is not decisive for a deletion decision. Rather "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." The relevant question is, could the article be improved? Has a proper WP:BEFORE search, as required in Wikipedia's deletion process, been done to answer that question one way or another? A search in Google Scholar alone leads to quite a number of secondary sources, and I would be surprised if they didn't provide enough information for a decent article. Daranios (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The Google Scholar are hits are interesting again in appearing to refer to the "Land of Zarahemla" as much as they do any city. The same problem seems to plague "Nephi", which is at once a land and city. Perhaps we're talking hypothetical city-states? It appears that there is some inherent ambiguity about the concept in the primary source texts in the first place, making examination tricky. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I only know about this topic from glimpses I have now taken into search hits. Based on that I would come to the same conclusion. This seems to be a not-so-unusual situation where we have a land and city/its capital of the same name, like Mexico/Mexico City, New York/New York (state) or Akkad/Akkad (region). I see two ways of dealing this, neither involving deletion: Either split the information into Zarahemla (city) and Land of Zarahemla or some such, with this page remaining as a disambiguation page linking to both. Or keeping everything together here and explaining the two entities/the ambiguity between both. This is the easier, and to me preferred version: The article now already treats it like that, even though it might be made clearer; as you said there's ambiguity, so if information cannot be clearly assigned to one entity or the other, it may be better to keep it together; and if enough information accumulates over time to make the dual-entity-articly unwieldy, the topic can still be split later - while not the deletion nomination raises the question if there is enough information to support one article, so splitting the topic further seems less than helpful. Daranios (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd rather not split the entities. The topic is probably notable, in need of a rewrite but probably not TNT. I maen, the topic (land of Zarahemia, which includes its city) has been subject to, among others, a book on the geography of this fictional land, and said book got academic reviews ([1]). Weak keep from me. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is there not a single independent scholarly source that properly describes it as Mormon mythology, from a book forged by Smith? If only primary (Book of Mormon) or confessional (current sources) exist, it is impossible to achieve an WP:NPOV article. I did a quick search without immediately finding what I was looking for, but listing such sources would be a good argument for "keep". Adding: "See Archaeology and the Book of Mormon for more detail about the archaeological debate between Mormons and archaeologists" even that is WP:GEVAL, there's no legitimate scientific debate in relation to that pseudoarchaeology... —PaleoNeonate – 21:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @PaleoNeonate: For what it's worth, here is short treatment in that regard: This and this paper point to lacking/contradictory evidence of Mormon archaeological sources and "the futility of such endeavors"; this book points out the lack of success in establishing a modern-day city of Zarahemla. Daranios (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I'll let others !vote and add the article to my notes so that if it survives I can eventually review it and perhaps improve it using such sources... —PaleoNeonate – 03:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I see a ton of hits on google books, and I'm willing to believe that at least some of those would be considered reliable. If someone investigates and finds that those sources are mostly biased and/or self published, I would not object to deleting this. Merging may be a suitable compromise. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable religious fancruft. Is there a theological equivalent of {{inuniverse}}? --Orange Mike | Talk 03:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep When I wanted to know about this, I came to Wikipedia. Others do the same. I can find at least some secular references to the current archeological dig in search of this site. There are good sources. I cannot think of a reason to delete this. PaulinSaudi (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (or alternatively redirect if there is a suitable target) - This is the equivalent of an article about a fictional city that has only been written about only from an in-universe perspective. None of the keep !voters has identified actual sourcing showing notability, instead simply asserting that "of course there are sources". FOARP (talk) 20:47, 5 January 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. The finding of more sources pushed the consensus towards the subject meeting WP:GNG, thus rendering moot the policy disputes over the ideal relationship between different notability guidelines. RL0919 (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Moore (baseball)[edit]

John Moore (baseball) (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)

Though a common name, I'm not finding enough coverage to meet GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He meets WP:NBASE 3 as the Birmingham Black Barons were in the Negro National League (I). He likely played more baseball for which the data is not easily accessible on the internet – as is unfortunately the case with a lot of Negro league statistics, but regardless of my hypothesis, he passes a WP:SNG. snood1205 22:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Vainowski, a topic that meets an SNG but doesn't have enough coverage is non-notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Taking a look at that AfD it seems like one of the issues is that the page had been around for at least a year without having any significant expansion in coverage. This article being only 2 months old I would hold to a different standard. The standard that was applied there is saying that articles that pass WP:SNG need to ultimately pass WP:GNG; however, articles that pass WP:SNG without immediately passing WP:GNG can be kept to allow for expansion for the article to meet WP:GNG. Especially in the case of athletes where the information is harder to research, allowing more time for expansion seems to make sense to me. I do see there were other arguments as well for delete, but I don't want to specifically rehash that AfD here. snood1205 23:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • How much time do you think John Moore should be given for expansion? BTW on Vainowski the article was 7,000+ bytes when deleted. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I cannot give a specific amount of time. Notwithstanding, I don't really feel that the result of that AfD is the be-all-and-end-all of results when it comes to WP:SNGs being a keep argument or not a keep argument. It feels a bit WP:WAX. There have been articles kept where the subject at the article's present state fails WP:GNG but passes a WP:SNG and then the article later passes WP:GNG. There have been times, like the AfD you have mentioned, where the article was deleted despite passing an SNG. It varies article-to-article, discussion-to-discussion. snood1205 02:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Negro league baseball players (M–R) per his extremely tiny notability, though would have preferred to link to his club's season article if there was one. Geschichte (talk) 09:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: I have the option to bitch and moan like I did in the Vainowski AfD but I'm not gonna. It's pretty obvious that sources aren't gonna exist for a Negro league player who only played 3 games, so that makes the SNG moot. Curbon7 (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Curbon7: In light of Penale's research showing his career lasted at least two years for three teams, rather than three games, and the substantial expansion, please have another look. Cbl62 (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Played 3 games in a MAJOR LEAGUE. This is a Negro leaguer, where sources are harder to come by, but more info (especially in the last few years) is being dug up. I am leery of the nomination (not their WP:AGF, but possibly WP:POINT); the OP had one of their NFL articles deleted, so now they are targeting MLB articles, but to target a Negro leaguer is in poor taste. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Vainowski is inappropriate to apply here as it's football (NGRIDIRON) not baseball (NBASE). Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • A few months ago, a baseball bio Featured Article was deleted because it comprehensibly failed WP:GNG. The precedent exists. Curbon7 (talk) 03:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jones (third baseman), then, no, it is not applicable either. "Jones" had so little known about him that his first name was unknown, and his last name may or may not have been that of another player. The article was about the game and other unknown players, not about the article subject. John Moore, however, is verified to have existed and played in several games that are known about. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He's referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis (baseball) (2nd nomination). BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which came a week after Jones & was based solely on the Jones AfD. And my argument for Lewis is word for word what is is for Jones. Not applicable. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the target suggested above. GNG should be considered largely irrespective of reporting bias, as the subjects should all have SIGCOV whether it be readily on-hand or currently inaccessible; a standalone is not warranted if coverage can't even be presumed, regardless of the reason. The best approach for us to address media discrimination would be for articles such as this to be redirected to lists, and then for the baseball project's Negro league task force (which doesn't seem to have been active since 2016) to coordinate finding sources on each redlinked entry. WiR does this with women's bios all the time: someone comes in with a draft or a list of female award recipients and asks the project to help find refs, and often another editor with access to offline or paywalled sources provides them. The result is a far more fleshed-out profile with GNG sourcing from the get-go.
Extended commentary

While this does happen sporadically on the sports projects pages, I think the difference in underlying article creation motivation at WiR (bolstering coverage of women, with attention to producing quality encyclopedic articles) compared to the SSGs (a very large proportion of creations derive from efforts either to "complete" a category of subjects meeting an SNG, or to boost an editor's creation count; neither puts any emphasis on achieving quality and both encourage database-dump microstubs) is a much bigger factor in how frequently such collaboration occurs. Even if only a small minority of sports project editors mass-create microstubs, the protection afforded by the SNGs allows microstub proliferation to far outpace thoughtful article creation by the majority, and we end up with tens of thousands of bios on people whose notability is not clearly presumable.

JoelleJay (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep passes the relevant SNG. I disagree with using a wrongly-decided AfD about a different sport as a basis upon which to start attacking baseball articles. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets notability requirements for having played at the major league level. Unlikely to get much in the way of updates unless an author does a deep dive and writes a book on these players. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b, @Lepricavark: GNG supersedes NSPORT, so meeting the SNG is actually irrelevant once notability is challenged. Here are the relevant instructions on NSPORT: This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia.
    The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline.

    Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not have to meet the general notability guideline?
    A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline.

    In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. JoelleJay (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply put, I do not believe that we are improving the encyclopedia by eliminating content that covers individuals who played at the level specified by the SNG. I realize that policy technically differs from me on this point, and I also realize that there are some editors who are all too eager to crusade against these "sub-stubs" as if their existence is a stain on Wikipedia's reputation (I suspect that this crowd would overlap significantly with those who whine and complain about the percentage of Wikipedia articles that are sports-related). However, I will stand by my belief that it does not benefit Wikipedia to cover 99% of all Major League Baseball players but then apply GNG to a small handful. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, we work on other areas of the encyclopaedia as well and like some rough level of consistency in how people are treated. Giving an article to everyone who ever played a single baseball game at a particular level and this is the only thing known about them would be the equivalent of giving one to everyone who ever founded a business, or wrote a book, or was notable because of a single event. Here we literally just have a database entry and that's it. Liking or disliking sports doesn't even come into it. FOARP (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect - Lacks any sigcov, keep !votes are leaning hard on an SNG but ultimately this guy still has to meet GNG and he doesn't (and even if he did, the minimal content makes this a WP:NOPAGE case). The only sources here are "listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion" which are excluded from showing notability per WP:SPORTCRIT. FOARP (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Based on Cbl62 and Penale52’s new sources. Congratulations to them for finding the sourcing that I and others failed to find. FOARP (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Having played only three games, Moore is not the best test case, but the Negro Leagues are a special case. Due to systemic racial bias in the mainstream (i.e., white) media, and despite having athletes competing on the same level as the white major leagues, Negro league players were largely ignored. Adding to the difficulty, most of the black newspapers from the 1920s and 1930s haven't yet been added to Newspapers.com. The result of this systemic bias is that our articles even on everyday Negro leaguers like Steel Arm Davis (20-year pro career), Harry Jeffries (19-year career), and Ambrose Reid (13-year career) lack SIGCOV. We need to be more lenient in the level of coverage required for Negro leaguers. Cbl62 (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. When those sources become more available, and assuming (as is actually unlikely) they gave Moore any significant coverage, then the article can be created with actual content. Actually, from experience, the existence of this article may dissuade people from creating a better one. FOARP (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hold up. All disagreement aside, but arguing that an existing article should be deleted because it prevents someone else from creating a better article is not a reason to delete. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m arguing that we should not simply keep an article with no sourcing indicating notability because sourcing might one day show up. The existence of this article actually de-incentivises people to go out and find that sourcing (assuming, as is unlikely, that it exists).FOARP (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Three questions: (1) If we know a subject received SIGCOV, but it was exclusively in sources that are absolutely irrecoverable, should an encyclopedia still cover them? (2) Does this change if the irrecoverability is a consequence of systemic oppression? (3) Does any relaxation of our guidelines/WP:NOT due to (2) apply to people who only might have received SIGCOV? JoelleJay (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Moore has an entry in the The Biographical Encyclopedia of the Negro Baseball Leagues by James A. Riley, which expands on his career some. It actually began in 1928 with the Pittsburgh Crawfords while they were a semi-pro club before he moved on to the Homestead Grays that August. I was able to find two mentions of him in the Pittsburgh Courier, along with the interesting note that when he and another player left the Crawfords, that opened a roster spot for none other than Josh Gibson. I have updated the article accordingly, but will continue to search for more on Moore, no pun intended. Penale52 (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The 12-line biographical entry in The Biographical Encyclopedia of the Negro Baseball Leagues qualifies, if marginally, as SIGCOV. Thanks to the efforts of User:Penale52, it is also now apparent that his Negro league career was not limited to three games but instead extended over at least two years. This article was created less than two months ago and has already developed significantly (three-fold expansion of narrative text) during the pendency of this AfD. If the presumption of notability is not completely illusory and has any effect whatsoever, this article should be allowed further time to develop. It is entirely likely that, given the length of his baseball career, additional SIGCOV will be included in other black newspaper outlets of the time. Cbl62 (talk) 03:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have also added some content from Sandlot Seasons: Sport in Black Pittsburgh published by the University of Illinois Press that has a paragraph about his multi-sport career. It turns out he was also a star on one of the early black professional basketball teams known as the Black Fives -- and also played semipro black football as quarterback of a Pittsburgh team. Expansion of narrative text now more than ten-fold in the last few hours. Do any of the redirect voters still believe this article is not worth saving and continued development?? Cbl62 (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switched to weak keep, based on the strengthened presumption of SIGCOV sources existing offered by the Riley profile and Sandlot mention uncovered by @Penale52: and @Cbl62:. While the surprisingly numerous sources on his high school and semipro basketball career aren't particularly deep, I did enjoy the old-timey turns of phrase used in this article, praising him and his all-star section teammate as "youthful satellites of the hardwood", and this one, where the author really hammered home a triple horse derby/Paul Revere/elk-based theme in his description of each Iron City Elks "midnight basketball" player ("Now listen, my readers, and you shall hear more about these modern Paul Reveres: ... A worthy leader of these antlered galloping ponies of the polished floors is Hilton "Scummy" Slocum, former pacer of the great Renaissance stable.") JoelleJay (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For better or worse, they don't write 'em like that any more. Cbl62 (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, wow! That was some great work done by Penale52 and Cbl62. I agree he now meets GNG. I'm surprised I wasn't able to find any of that in my search. Is there a way I can withdraw this AFD? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can only withdraw if there are no votes other than "Keep", but your inclination to withdraw should be weighed by the closer. Cbl62 (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Based on the sources added after the AfD started there is now a stronger presumption that SIGCOV sources exist. I suggest that the name of the article be changed though, maybe to John Moore (multi-sport athlete) as he was clearly more than just a baseball player. Alvaldi (talk) 10:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure if it helps but this 1928 article in the Pittsburgh Press names him John "Judy" Moore. There was a Judy Moore who played baseball for for a team named Ozark Pilots in Alabama from around 1934 to 1935 [2][3][4], though I can't be certain if it is the same person. Alvaldi (talk) 13:57, 9 January 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! 22:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Term limits in Wyoming[edit]

Term limits in 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)

Nothing about this article suggests the topic is inherently notable. With only one source to go on, and four years having transpired since its last edit, I believe this article should go. Love of Corey (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Person, Debora; Plumb, Tawnya (11 February 2008). "Initiatives and Referenda in Wyoming". Legal Reference Services Quarterly. 26 (3–4): 321–335. doi:10.1300/J113v26n03_24.
  2. ^ Kousser, Thad (2005). Term limits and the dismantling of state legislative professionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521839853.
  3. ^ "Term Limits Provisions in State Laws and Constitutions". www.ncsl.org. National Conference of State Legislatures.
  4. ^ Karp, Jeffrey A. (1995). "Explaining Public Support for Legislative Term Limits". The Public Opinion Quarterly. 59 (3): 373–391. ISSN 0033-362X.
  5. ^ R, Doug (7 March 2021). "Wyoming Term Limits Constitutional Amendment Proposed". KGAB AM 650.
  6. ^ Learned, Nick (26 May 2020). "Wyoming Senate Candidates Vow to Support Term Limits Amendment". K2 Radio.
  7. ^ NEARY, BEN (1 February 2013). "Court rules against term limits for Wyoming officials, except governor". Casper Star-Tribune Online.
  8. ^ "Wyoming lawmaker pushes for another vote on term limits". Billings Gazette. 4 May 2004.
  9. ^ "TERM-LIMIT BACKERS SUBMIT PETITIONS REFORM GROUP HOPING FOR WYOMING VOTE ON CONVENTION TO CHANGE ARTICLE IN CONSTITUTION". Rocky Mountain News. Associated Press. 23 February 1996 – via gale.com.
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Term limits in the United States/Merge to Wyoming Legislature and List of governors of Wyoming. Many states have term limits, with historical coverage of their adoption (and rejection), but it should be discussed in the appropriate context of the offices, not a separate page. Reywas92Talk 07:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wyoming (as with most states) has a unique situation regarding the adoption and rejection of term limits. Term limits were applied as part of distinct political movements, but were removed in a disjointed manner, eg the Wyoming Supreme Court quashed term limits for state officers and state legislative members in different decisions a decade apart, but limits for the Governor remain in place (as no case has been brought challenging that limit). It makes little sense for the information to be disaggregated by office. The sources show more than adequate material for a stand alone article; Term limits in Oregon indicates the possibilities. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article could certainly use some expansion, but the unique history of term limits in Wyoming compared to that of other states, combined with the amount of coverage about this topic in the sources provided by Goldsztajn, suggest that this topic meets the notability guidelines. --Zander251 (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, will always be a subject of influence, interest and reporting when such a large political body takes up deep rules as to its ways of self-governance. Hyperbolick (talk) 11:20, 6 January 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 Bedford High School (Ohio). History is available if anyone believes there is useful content to merge. RL0919 (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Middlefield Cheese Stadium[edit]

Middlefield Cheese Stadium (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)

Small high school field doesn't meet GNG. Briefly hosted pro soccer too but that doesn't do much for its notability. I see no significant coverage. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 12:56, 3 January 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 Diwa de Leon. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2022) 12:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Makiling (band)[edit]

Makiling (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)

Fails GNG. No additional sources found and the only one in the article is the official website. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 12:13, 3 January 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. Improving parts of the article (if any) is highly encouraged to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2022) 14:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transparent Language Online[edit]

Transparent Language Online (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)

G11 speedy was removed with the rationale, "This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... I'm reading this as not unambiguously promotional, certainly at every version. No objection to AfD testing." This is one of the most obvious advertisements I've seen on Wikipedia. After the lead, the entire piece is simply a product brochure for the products of the company. Onel5969 TT me 02:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 02:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:: I randomly came across when visiting the creator's talk page on another matter, observed the CSD notice and took a peek. The history and edit summaries looked a little unusual (I have subsequently noticed a histmerge which seems a little unusual. At a skim the references looked at least reasonable, the jstor at a glance looking significant. One persons feature is another person's advertisement. A CSD contestation requires immediate action, which is what I've taken, to take a longer term look, possibly at AfD. @Missvain, Possibly, Kim9988, DferDaisy, and Anthony Appleyard:: With apologies for annoying people with the ping, but making best efforts to avoid a biased canvas, can I ask as having made a significant contribution or been involved in the histmerge do you any of you wish to make any comments here to fill in background? Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't know what the heck is going on here. I DID NOT write this article. I don't even remember this subject let alone know anything about it. I don't even think I accepted it via AfD. Maybe I moved it and did something weird by creating a new article versus moving it properly from AfD? Suffice to say, I did not write this and that's evident - if you know my work, and also notice when I "created" the page I added four tags for notability, COI, sources and verification[6]. Regardless, I don't care what happens to it. Missvain (talk) 03:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I didn't even notice that the history log listed you as the article creator Missvain, so my apologies for the template on your talk page. Obviously, this is not your work. Onel5969 TT me 14:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment at the minimum the entire “Products and services” section has to go. It’s got anonymous endorsements and unsourced product material. Not sure about the rest. Mccapra (talk) 05:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well I see now that this is largely a question of style and formatting. There are in fact multiple reviews of the software by independent scholars so there is certainly the basis for a valid article. I don’t think this is it though. Mccapra (talk) 05:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think I'd normally !vote keep with qualification to stubify sand re-create. However I am minded there are attribution concerns/errors with the current article that may not be resolvable and TNT may be required. This is one of the few occasions where a I might find a TNT is required rather than a STUBIFY may be required. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:*Delete: (with caveats): If the attribution mistakes/error(s) cannot be fully resolved/reconciled - and I totally accept any that may have occurred were doen in good faith - I request hard delete (needs to be hard), but requests closer makes it abundantly clear no objection to a good fiath re-creation. Please be aware I have created in a page my userspace the set of bare URLs and categories which I would intent to use as the basis of a page recreation without attribution issues (although it would still be a bit of a good faith gazump). If attribution issues are fully resolved I would wish to change by vote to keep with closer indicate a need for immediate stubification which I would hope to do, RL permitting. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC) I believe the attribution issues are now resolvable so will re-!vote below. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The reason it shows Missvain as creator, is that Missvain brought it back from a deletion file to draft space so it could be made acceptable. Years ago the article was created, I don't remember by whom or when. It had no independent sources, so it was deleted. I hadn't seen the deletion discussion, but knew the article existed, and knew there were reliable sources showing its significance in online language teaching, so I asked for it to be brought back, and Missvain brought it back to draft space. Another editor and I made some improvements, citing the academic sources, and made it a live article again. As people have said, this could certainly be done better. It is a notable company, based on its coverage in academic journals. It has roles in both military teaching, and general teaching. Kim9988 (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for the additional background information. Useful. If the article is kept "as-is" with attribution issues not fixed on edit summary/talk page then I would intend to immediately re-test against copyvio criteria as Db-G12 seems applicable, but I would not use that as there is a plausible possibility, perhaps even a probability than the reason the histmerge seemingly had null effect was that all previous nominations were by anon IPs : In this use case I am minded a dummy an edit summary of the form "This article was created by Missvain from contributions of anonymous IPs - see Special:Diff/1062078371" (Or ideally some sort of improvement on that to the effect Missvain was not responsibie for content on creation and an admin confirms all content at creation was originally. But if that cases is not evidenced I may recheck Wikipedia:Copyright violations to determine a way forward, or if that gives no prescriptive way forward maybe think of alternatives. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2022) 12:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember, honestly, but that sounds about right. See what I said above - anyone who knows my edit history knows a subject like this is not in my wheelhouse. Clearly this involved helping someone, Articles for Creation, etc. Sorry I don't remember. I hit 200,000 edits recently - all done by hand and not by bots - so I might forget a few things sometimes. No need to ping me unless it's absolutely necessary. I don't care what happens to this article, TBH. Missvain (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Anthony Appleyard: Thankyou for lookin at that. Sorry for being a pain, can you look at the deleted article Transparent Language and refund that to my userspace instead (There should be a full copy of Transparent Language at at its XfD around somewhere in this cloud of unknowing. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Anthony Appleyard Thankyou for doing that, but its not what I'm looking for.as it is the attribution history that is important. Cut/paste copies just don't cut the mustard; its likely why were mostly here in the first place. It's just possible the talk pages history might be useful as well. This will be heading for a DRV at this rate and none of us need the drama llama. Please REFUND all versions of Transparent Language and its talk page ... I should have made it clear I did not want a cut and paste copy. I can go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion if you are busy. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk)
The advert reason concerns are why I've offered, actually committed, to WP:STUBIFY on keep to get good baseline. Its great the attribution is sorted so this is possible. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify to let Djm fix the article, and upon improvement can be moved back to mainspace. Jumpytoo Talk 23:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • To make this abundantly clear, given the amount of time I've had to waste on this due to copy violation/attribution failures, from my point of view I am refusing draftication for me to work on this. If drama is wanted it will be had, and there may be consequences I'm tryng to avoid. That may seem unreasonable, but its my RL too. To be clear, I will likely DRV on draftication. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Revision 1064718635 is WP:STUBIFYed non-G11 & sources (Graham, 1992); (Saury, 1998); (Wildner, 2002) and pretty much most sources on the revision and a few not on it past satisify all relevant policies, guidelines, GNG, NSOFT etc. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:36, 9 January 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 12:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vinoth Rajendran[edit]

Vinoth Rajendran (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 subject. fails gng. Behind the moors (talk) 11:55, 3 January 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 12:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jalan Batang Kali–Genting Highlands[edit]

Jalan Batang Kali–Genting Highlands (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)

Malaysian highway article unreferenced since 2006. In my WP:BEFORE I found only the usual mirrors and an article about an accident on the road (i.e., not coverage of the road per se). None of the information on this page beyond the simple existence of the road can be sourced to a reliable, notability-indicating source (maps are excluded per WP:NGEO). This is not an inter-state road per se as it is actually two state roads (Selangor State Route B66 and Pahang state route C66). Searches for "state route B66" and "state route C66" also drew a blank. Fails WP:GEOROAD (which is a ridiculously lax standard BTW) but also WP:V. No obvious redirect target exists that I can see.

PS - for what it's worth, and this is not a DELREASON per se, the creator was indef blocked in 2010 for copyright violations. FOARP (talk) 11:00, 3 January 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 12:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Tully[edit]

Tristan Tully (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 search brings up a number of people called Tristan Tully, but none of them seems to be this one. There may be US sources I’m not finding so bringing here for consensus. I’m nominating this based on the lack of in depth coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 10:09, 3 January 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. Not notable as a standalone list and there was no consensus to merge. RL0919 (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of EA Sports NASCAR series cover athletes[edit]

List of EA Sports NASCAR series cover athletes (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)

Cruft list and goes against WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Might be preferable to mention who was on the cover of each of the EA Sport NASCAR video games on the articles on the video games themselves and/or on the main overview page MWright96 (talk) 08:39, 3 January 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 Gentle Giant#Discography. ✗plicit 12:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Under Construction (Gentle Giant album)[edit]

Under Construction (Gentle Giant album) (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)

Album seems to fall short of WP:NALBUM. Sikonmina (talk) 07:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Progplanet's reviews are written by unpaid reviewers. For that source, that would be considered unreliable. Sikonmina (talk) 08:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[8] states the "Reviews express the opinions of their writers". Expose Online isn't reliable either. Sikonmina (talk) 08:45, 4 January 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 Riverside (band)#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2022) 10:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voices in My Head (EP)[edit]

Voices in My Head (EP) (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 believe this fails WP:GNG due to: discogs being a primary source and facebook and dprp.net being unreliable sources. Sikonmina (talk) 07:45, 3 January 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 12:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Falah bin Zayed Al Nahyan[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Falah bin Zayed Al Nahyan (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 doesn't seem to meet WP:ANYBIO- lacks in-depth coverage in WP:RS MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:34, 3 January 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 12:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Connor[edit]

Alex Connor (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:BLP of a young racing driver who has only competed in very minor series. Beyond the two Formula Scout articles cited in the article ("Alex Connor making F3 debut at Dubai Autodrome this weekend" and "Alex Connor moves into BRDC British F3 with Arden", both of which are fairly WP:ROUTINE announcements), the only coverage I could find in an independent reliable source which constituted more than a passing mention was this Autosport article. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:12, 3 January 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 12:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Mc Dermott[edit]

Karen Mc Dermott (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)

Self-published author who doesn't appear to meet WP:NAUTHOR or have significant independent coverage. Beware Forbes articles featuring her which appear to be paid-for or self-contributed rather than proper Forbes editorial articles. Boneymau (talk) 05:58, 3 January 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 Travel Channel original programming. ✗plicit 12:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Alaska Triangle[edit]

The Alaska Triangle (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 my field, but there appear to be no reliable 3rd party sources--just program listings. DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:52, 3 January 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. czar 00:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Time Share (2000 film)[edit]

Time Share (2000 film) (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 television film. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. Found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did find a review from The Dove Foundation in my WP:BEFORE search, but the article needs more coverage in order to be eligible. The Film Creator (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Apparently a popular movie, with an international release, and with Timothy Dalton and Natassia Kinkski... however, there simply isn't enough RS here to establish whether it is notable or not. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is, and have listed them. Geschichte (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the identified German reviews which show it is notable in German which is enough for WP:GNG which makes clear that non-english sources are acceptable for notability purposes, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 02:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Der Spiegel seals the deal; the film was definitely notable in Germany. Geschichte (talk) 08:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The review in Der Spiegel by Simone Mahrenholz is significant coverage in an independent reliable source. The article may need to be updated to reflect the critique though: the reviewer finds that Kinski just isn't funny, and Dalton comes across as usual: plain, virile and shallow. Vexations (talk) 15:15, 4 January 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 05:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of German Open Men's Singles champions in badminton[edit]

List of German Open Men's Singles champions in badminton (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 references to support the list, source mentioned in the article just tells about the winners, not the finalists and winners are already nentioned in German Open article of all five categories. zoglophie 05:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the main argument is that some references are missing, should not the article be tagged with "Reference needed" or something similar instead of deleting the complete article? MontanNito (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 02:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment MontanNito we generally do not have separate articles for each category. And even if this list is kept, are we going to ignore that it has been fully unreferenced since it's creation 15 years ago? The bottom of the page show us one source, it does not give details about the finalists/Runners-up. The other 2 lists are even worse. Redirecting to the main article could be an option, though. zoglophie 07:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete unsourced list, though the topic itself is notable. I could potentially change to keep if properly sourced. Frank Anchor 18:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced list. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:30, 5 January 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 05:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of French Open Men's Singles champions in badminton[edit]

List of French Open Men's Singles champions in badminton (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)

Same as of List of German Open Men's Singles champions in badminton, incomplete list, no references to support the list of finalists and list of winners is already in French Open article. zoglophie 05:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 02:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete unsourced list, though the topic itself is notable. I could potentially change to keep if properly sourced. Frank Anchor 18:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced list. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:30, 5 January 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. Unnecessary forking of information already included at French Open (badminton). RL0919 (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of French Open Women's Singles champions in badminton[edit]

List of French Open Women's Singles champions in badminton (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)

Same concerns as of List of French Open Men's Singles champions in badminton, incomplete list, no references to support the list of finalists and list of winners of all five categories is already given in French Open article. zoglophie 06:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 02:05, 3 January 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 List of rimfire cartridges. czar 00:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

.17 Rimfire[edit]

.17 Rimfire (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 wonder if this should be blanked and redirected to 4 mm caliber which offers overlapping information, or kept and perhaps moved to .17 caliber and expanded, analogous to the situation with .22 caliber and 5 mm caliber. A merge is also possible, but not sure what content would fit well into 4 mm caliber. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is not technically a disambiguation page. There is also the page List of rimfire cartridges which along with 4 mm caliber contains overlapping content. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 02:05, 3 January 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. Not shown to have coverage to meet WP:NCORP requirements. RL0919 (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Utopia Deals[edit]

Utopia Deals (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)

Promotional company article. Bbarmadillo (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is no clear example of WP:NPOV violation in the article. Article also has more than enough sources to meet WP:GNG. RealKnockout (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: RealKnockout (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (or draftify? user appears to be making good-faith efforts to improve the article). More or less a press release as written. Citing (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you kindly state examples of the article violating WP:NPOV? Thanks. RealKnockout (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is this one-paragraph article is indistinguishable from a blurb that would appear on a company profile page from an online retailer. It is almost entirely sales figures and a list of what products it offers and where to buy them. That isn't enough for an encyclopedia stub. It could be made into something more, but as it stands it's very promotional.Citing (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the marketplaces they operate on and added manufacturing information. Is that fine? RealKnockout (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It still needs some work. I looked around and the article on Daraz may be a helpful model in terms of content and sourcing (assuming there are enough in-depth sources to improve the article -- I am not familiar enough with this topic to find more sources though). Citing (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you mean now. I definitely have enough sources to do that (especially due to how long the BBC Urdu article is), I will try to rewrite the article later today. RealKnockout (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 01:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - via WP:G11.-KH-1 (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Entirely promotional as pointed out by Citing above. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Most of the references talk about the CEO or the fact that the company topped some charts for sales, but nothing that could could as in-depth information. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 20:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources only mention the founder in the title, the content they contain is almost exclusively about the company. Furthermore, consider reading the BBC Urdu article with Google Translate. RealKnockout (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • They do more than mention the CEO, they are repeating and regurgitating his quotes and interviews with no "Independent Content" (as per ORGIND). Here's a quickie analysis of the sources.
  • This from BOL News is based entirely on an interview with the CEO, fails ORGIND
  • Very short article on BBC (a puff piece), all of the information (including the tweet) is based entirely on stuff provided by the CEO or the company. Fails ORGIND
  • In May 2021, in an attempt to cash in on the news that Amazon had added Pakistan to their list of sellers and currencies, the topic company and their CEO went into promotion overdrive starting with a small interview on 16th May. That is why from 19th May there are several articles all repeating the same "facts". This is not news, it is marketing. None of the articles such as the ones from Startup Pakistan, the Urdo BBC the piece, Technologistan, Pakistan Observer, Extra Mile Pakistan or Naya Daur are useful for the purposes of establishing notability.
Having searched, I cannot see anything else about the company that doesn't rely entirely on interviews with the CEO or generic description which is copied from the website. HighKing++ 18:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INTERVIEW states that a good amount of interviews (from reliable sources) showcases that the the topic is receiving good attention and could make it notable. The company interview with BOL News (A major Pakistani news agency), BBC Urdu (the BBC itself, and the interview doesn't appear short by any means), and the 3 paragraphs on PT by Pakistan Today (another Pakistani news agency) means that the company alone being able to secure interviews with non-niche agencies is contribution to notability. A reprint of the interview facts would also mean further relevance and notability? I think this lets the article marginally fit WP:GNG. RealKnockout (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Response Two reasons. First, WP:INTERVIEW is neither policy nor guideline but an essay and therefore cannot be used to "overrule" applicable policies/guidelines. It is also geared towards interviewing people for that person's notability, not companies or organizations. That said, the Notability section helpfully points out acceptable elements which may assist in establishing notability such as "a depth of preperation", "the interview material" being "interspersed with the interviewer's own secondary analysis and thoughts" and presenting "their own evidence challenging claims" being made and "offering their own conclusions". This sentiment is very much in line with WP:ORGIND and the requirement for "Independent Content" which I've pointed out above. Also, eacch reference must meet all of NCORP's criteria. For example, if an executive provides in-depth information on the company (which would meet WP:CORPDEPTH criteria) but the journalist fails to provide their own opinon/analysis/etc (failing WP:ORGIND) then that reference still fails NCORP criteria and cannot be used to assist in establishing notability. If you're implying that any of the sources you claim are good in that respect, please point out which paragraph. Secondly, the applicable guideline is not GNG as you say (see the WP:SNG section of GNG), but WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 20:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first interview by BOL News contains a fairly long segment on the company and the CEO plus a bit of background information. There is a YouTube video there of the interview which you can see. I will examine the interview later and translate anything which would show it is appropriate for notability (it is in the Urdu language) Together with the BBC Urdu piece and the other interviews supporting it probably meets notability crtieria. Also, my mistake, I typed GNG accidentally, I had meant to reference WP:NCORP. RealKnockout (talk) 01:11, 8 January 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 05:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Caprio[edit]

Nicholas Caprio (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)

Promotional page with regular editing by 1 user (User:DoctorMegan) that only edits this one article and other related articles of television produtions the person is involved in with Pilgrim Studios. Probable Wikipedia:COI issues. There is no real notability per the sourcing and not widespread coverage. Obviously reads as an advertisement for this person. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 04:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 01:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Insufficient notability. Sources indicate only minor production role. Reads more like an insignificant long list of what he's worked on. Coldupnorth (talk) 22:02, 3 January 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. consensus is he isn't yet notable. @Nbarchaeo:, if you would like this restored to draft to incubate and work on, just let me know. Star Mississippi 16:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitrij Buławka-Fankidejski[edit]

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

It's WP:TOOSOON for this sculptor who does not yet meet WP:GNG. I'm unable to find independent WP:SIGCOV on his work. He designed a public art work, but everything I find on it does not mention him, only the person who is subject of the statue itself (a race car driver), so I don't think he meets WP:NARTIST either. He's an assistant professor, and has not had many shows, his work is not represented in several notable museum collections, nor has there been in-depth analysis of his work in reviews or articles about him. Bringing this here so the community can decide if the article should be retained or not. Netherzone (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are similar issues with Alicja Buławka-Fankidejska and Statue of Ayrton Senna. I don't see any indication that his work has been covered in English sources. I'll note that there is no requirement that sources are in English, but my lack of competence in Polish makes that difficult for me. I did search for German and French sources, I have a access to [Art (magazine)|Art]] for example, via the Wikipedia library, but came up with nothing. Vexations (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vexations, yes I saw those two related articles, and they are similar to this one but have a bit more coverage. Netherzone (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nbarchaeo (talk) WP:SIGCOVWP:GNG Notability is proven by numerous mentioned in the news related to:

  • Ayrton Senna statue is inaugurated next to museum in Poland, where his name is mentioned in Wyborcza.pl and Polski Związek Motorowy
  • 2021. "Pomnik Ayrtona Senny stanął w Wałbrzychu. Pomysłodawcą jest były kierowca wyścigowy Jerzy Mazur", published at "Wyborcza.pl"[1]
  • 2021. "Wałbrzych ma pomnik Ayrtona Senny", published at "Polski Związek Motorowy"[2][3]


  • Gdańskie Fasady OdNowa project where his name is mentioned www.trojmiasto.pl and PORTAL MIASTA GDAŃSKA
    • 2018. "Zobacz odnowione gdańskie fasady. Sobotni spacer", published at "www.trojmiasto.pl"[4]
    • 2018. "Gdańskie Fasady OdNowa” 2018 coraz bliżej", published at "PORTAL MIASTA GDAŃSKA"[5]
  1. ^ Wiktoria Blicharz-Janicka (1 May 2021). "Pomnik Ayrtona Senny stanął w Wałbrzychu. Pomysłodawcą jest były kierowca wyścigowy Jerzy Mazur". Wyborcza.pl. Retrieved 5 December 2021.
  2. ^ "Wałbrzych ma pomnik Ayrtona Senny". Polski Związek Motorowy. 21 September 2021. Retrieved 5 December 2021.
    • 2021. "Pomnik słynnego kierowcy Ayrtona Senny w Wałbrzychu odsłonięty [ZDJĘCIA]", published at "Wyborcza.pl"
  3. ^ "Pomnik słynnego kierowcy Ayrtona Senny w Wałbrzychu odsłonięty [ZDJĘCIA]". Wyborcza.pl. 21 September 2021. Retrieved 5 December 2021.
  4. ^ "Zobacz odnowione gdańskie fasady. Sobotni spacer". www.trojmiasto.pl. 23 November 2018. Retrieved 3 January 2022.
  5. ^ "Finał projektu "Gdańskie Fasady OdNowa" 2018 coraz bliżej". PORTAL MIASTA GDAŃSKA. 2 November 2018. Retrieved 3 January 2022.

Nbarchaeo (talk)

Comment - Please sign your posts, thanks in advance. These are not in-depth significant coverage - except perhaps the last one in Portal Miasta Gdanska which talks about he and his wife's fabrication techniques. That is not much to base a biographic article on, and not enough to substantiate notability per Wikipedia standards. The other sources are simply "name checks" or a mention; one contains a single sentence that says he made a sculpture. WP:MILL and WP:ROUTINE What is needed are multiple in-depth articles or reviews, or a monograph or inclusion in art historical texts. Netherzone (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thank you for your contribution Netherzone. I really appreciate your help in pointing out the weak spots of the article. When I have prepared it I thought a selection of exhibitions and works will be sufficient. I will try to improve the article.Nbarchaeo (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree that the article had to be corrected to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. In my opinion, the article should be kept WP:KEEP, because I have corrected most of the necessary parts. Thanks to Netherzone also key problems were also removed. Nbarchaeo (talk) 18:1, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:NARTIST. The artist isn't in any collections that I can see. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see that the article has been improved enough since[10] it was brought here that it should be kept. There is still no indication that his work is the subject of critical discourse, or that it has been discussed in independent secondary sources. Vexations (talk) 17:46, 9 January 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. Wizardman 16:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Pastor[edit]

Pedro Pastor (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)

Well, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Vainowski, topics meeting an SNG are not notable if not enough coverage has been found. In this case, I am not finding much at all in my search, and therefore he fails GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Society for American Baseball Research has Pastor included on its list of biographies to be written (here), but it has not yet been assigned. Cbl62 (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where would African-American/Cuban newspapers be found? I though they were covered on newspapers.com. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very few African-American newspapers from the 1920s are available online. From my prior Negro League research, I've found decent online access for the Pittsburgh outlet and some for a NY outlet, but I'm not aware of others being available online. As for Cuba, Newpapers.com does not include any Cuban newspapers. Cbl62 (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pastor is also listed (here) by the Grupo Cubano de Investigación del Béisbol (GCIB) on its compilation of the 150 Cuban players who played in the big black leagues. This puts him among the top 150 Cuban players during the period from 1920 to 1950. Cbl62 (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep likewise not a fan of targeting Negro leaguers for deletion, and I think the case presented by Cbl62 convinces me that a presumption of notability is reasonable. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per NBASE and per Lepricavark. I don't think that the result of one AfD for a different sport overrides the consensus developed in NBASE, and I am not a fan of targeting Negro Leaguers for deletion. It is possible that NBASE should be reconsidered in light of recognizing the Negro Leagues as a Major League - perhaps the guidelines developed for Major Leaguers prior to this development ought to be revised for Negro Leaguers - but if so that should be addressed in that way - reconsidering NBASE - rather than picking off Negro Leaguers in individual AfDs. Rlendog (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 01:55, 3 January 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 05:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anas Haneef[edit]

Anas Haneef (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)

References are primary, principally about a road safety campaign. Remaining references are mention. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR Whiteguru (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 01:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nothing notable about his career/roles. Oaktree b (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of meeting NACTOR or GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:10, 4 January 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. Nom (me) fail. Star Mississippi 02:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suspense Magazine[edit]

Suspense Magazine (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)

Recently deleted via PROD (no issue with recreation), but my reason, Unable to identify independent reliable source coverage about the magazine. remains. They had reprints of notable authors, but I can find no evidence that the authors' inclusion was because the magazine was considered important, or other elements that would establish notability required. Star Mississippi 01:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 01:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 01:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Magazines that printed stories by significant authors, like this one, warrant our coverage. Our articles on the history of science-fiction and related magazines are of an unusually high standard, which should not be damaged by creating an unnecessary gap in the coverage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This may not be immediately apparent, but this article is not on the same magazine as the one that was deleted. I was about to create this article when I saw the PROD so I waited in order to avoid creating an unnecessary disambig. The magazine has an article about it in each of the two sources listed in the article; I think that gets us to the GNG. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I uh clearly need to not edit while half asleep because I thought I checked and clearly I didn't or looked at something incorrectly. I'm going to close this on that, and because I can count on one hand the mumber of other editors besides NYB I defer to. Thanks / apologies again. Star Mississippi 02:47, 3 January 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 are strongly divergent opinions about this, but given that this is a WP:BLP that appears to consist entirely of material that could be perceived as negative, I have given more weight to those concerns. RL0919 (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Harrington[edit]

Melissa Harrington (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)

Frankly a massive BLP vio through undue coverage. Literally all the reliable coverage is minor league legal stuff. She isn’t notable enough to have any meaningful coverage and if all we can cover is this, then its impossible to have a balanced bio that covers the subject fairly. Spartaz Humbug! 23:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete per nom, and my own research supports the apparent impossibility of writing a BLP-compliant article. Beccaynr (talk) 02:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes the GNG in that she has received significant coverage in multiple RS for different events. In addition to the ones in the article.[11][12][13][14][15] Arguing that the coverage is not meaningful is just a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. She courts controversy, and if that is the majority of the coverage, so be it because it is WP:DUE under our BLP policies. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sources, including ones cited above, do not appear to support an article based on her 'courting controversy', e.g. "Melissa Midwest has now "demanded that she be withdrawn as a plaintiff" because she never agreed to be part of the lawsuit, according to the document." (NY Daily News) (as compared to the Omaha.com article linked above that relies on and links to the WP:NYPOST); "It appears that nobody informed Ms. Harrington that she was the lead plaintiff." (JDSupra linked above), and there is a 2008 article linked above that is mostly based on an interview, reports of allegations, and a 2004 fine, 2007 conviction, and a 2007 lawsuit, that by 2008, she dismissed. The secondary commentary seems mostly limited to references such as 'hottie' (NY Daily News) and 'vixen' (The Register). Per WP:BLP, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, so cobbling together brief bursts of superficial coverage of each scandal does not appear WP:DUE per WP:MINORASPECT, For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. Beccaynr (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you are citing MINORASPECT when these are not isolated events or the NY Daily News (a non RS) when I didn't. Bait and switch argument? Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’d argue you are making my point. There is literally nothing in RSs about this person that isn’t sensational reporting about her legal issues. This is no basis for a BLP and unless we can portray a balanced and fair portrayal of this person who is, at the end of the day, marginally notable, then we should not have one on the overriding arguement of NOHARM. Spartaz Humbug! 10:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RSP, Most editors consider the content of New York Daily News articles to be generally reliable, but question the accuracy of its tabloid-style headlines, and NYDN reports in 2014, tabloid-style, on a lawsuit JDSupra reports "was dismissed in its entirety." So from my view, this is a sensationalized and isolated legal issue, similar to the other sensationalized and isolated legal issues. Her notability is primarily supported by brief bursts of tabloid-style coverage, but in a BLP, WP:NOTSCANDAL requires us to meet an especially high standard. I mentioned WP:MINORASPECT because it is the WP:NPOV section below WP:DUE, and I think it highlights the problem raised by the nom and in WP:BLPBALANCE, i.e. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. It is not fair to the subject, per policy, to be sensationalist, and we don't appear to have sources to otherwise support a balanced and fair article about her and her career. Beccaynr (talk) 13:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The arrests and lawsuits are a pattern of legal issues, not isolated. She courted controversy. Just because she stopped years later in refusing to join a lawsuit with her ex-husband does not mean she courted controversy as a WP:PUBLICFIGURE for many years (2004-2013). It's completely fair if her biography reflects that. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not if that is literally all we can source. Do we really have to bluelink WP:NOTASCARLETLETTER? Spartaz Humbug! 21:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should it go to Tericka Dye or Morganna? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neither is really our best work but I feel really sad for Tericka Dye. Spartaz Humbug! 08:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From my view, if Harrington was a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, only noteworthy, relevant, and well documented allegations or incidents are suitable to include, and If [we] cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. The article has two reprinted links to a brief 2003 AP story, one filed in CNN's "offbeat news" section, and another published by USAToday, about allegations related to a ticket for being naked in public, and inclusion of the various allegations and incidents do not otherwise appear supported per this policy.
To the extent she 'courted controversy', the available sources indicate she was unsuccessful in becoming "noteworthy, relevant or well-documented", and per policy, Wikipedia is not intended to simply be an extension of marketing efforts. In addition, the BLP policy against sensationalism appears to apply without a caveat related to the role the subject may have had in contributing to sensationalized coverage.
However, she also does not appear to be a public figure, based on the limited secondary commentary or context in sources that also otherwise fail to support WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, or WP:ENT notability. Per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, because she is relatively unknown, we should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. The low-quality secondary sources and the recommended restraint therefore further supports deletion of the article. Beccaynr (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She's WP:PUBLICFIGURE based on the linked WP:LOWPROFILE guidelines. Being a porn star and making national radio appearances to promote herself[16][17][18] is nowhere near low-profile. Her incidents have also lead to a conviction[19] which satisfy WP:BLPCRIME. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC / WP:ENT. Tabloid blotter about a ticket and a voluntary dismissed lawsuit; BLPs deserve better than this. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Seems to have some general notability as a porn star... but also as an entrepreneur. On top of that, she has also appeared in various news titles for various reasons, over a period of time. Meets WP:GNG and seems to pass WP:PUBLICFIGURE . As mentioned, apart from the articles discussing her various legal issues, this article features her, discussing her as an entrepreneur/businesswoman. I suspect she may qualify on WP:BLPCRIME. On the whole, just enough here to push her over the line. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete; this seems to fall short of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 00:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Morbidthoughts and Deathlibrarian. The coverage could've been better in detailing her life and career, but you aren't going to get very detailed biographical profiles on porn stars very often outside of the porn press. --GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Agreed! Morbidthoughts and Deathlibrarian have won me over; very strong arguments. — Ret.Prof (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is considerable disagreement over whether the sources presented here constitute substantive biographical coverage; more detailed discussion of these sources would be helpful in determining consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 00:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable for an on-air rape. Frankly disgusting. Her career isn't notable based on what I've seen here either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if I have misinterpreted your comment, but your remarks seem to indicate that you are deleting her because you dissaprove of one particular thing she did. That's not what we are voting on here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She got fingered basically, the rest of her career isn't notable. Still leaning towards delete. Oaktree b (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I get your sentiment, and can see why this article might be frustrating to some that it exists, but that's not what happened according to the source. She was not the alleged victim. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, there are not a multitude of reliable published sources available, as required by this policy, and this discussion has therefore been unable to establish noteworthy, relevant, and well documented incidents as required by this policy. To clarify my comment above, I was trying to explain how she does not appear to be notable per our policies and guidelines, even if she is considered a public figure, and also how she should not be considered a public figure. The WP:LOWPROFILE essay states it is intended as a supplement to WP:BLP1E, and while I see some overlap with the public figure article linked in the text of the WP:PUBLICFIGURE policy (e.g. the Eminence section), it seems clear there is a policy distinction, and a public figure is someone with a much wider scope of social influence than Harrington has ever achieved. The Daily Nebraskan source linked by Deathlibrarian and mentioned in my comment above as based mostly on an interview is a student newspaper, and therefore should not be considered substantial independent biographical coverage per our guidelines. The policies and guidelines of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:ENT all appear to support deletion, and this discussion has failed to identify sufficient independent and reliable secondary sources to support any alternative to deletion. Beccaynr (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PUBLICFIGURE applies to the specific incident which is satisfied by CNN, USA Today, and the local newspapers and news. It does not demand this for any continuing coverage of her outside of that incident. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems clear WP:PUBLICFIGURE requires more than a brief AP article about a ticket for allegedly being naked in public that was reprinted by USAToday and filed by CNN in its "offbeat" news section, an interview with a student newspaper, sensationalized tabloid-style news stories, and brief mentions, because the lack of significant coverage helps show she is not a public figure, and the WP:PUBLICFIGURE policy requires more substantial and reliable coverage than this to include the allegations and incidents in the article, even if she was a public figure. Articles about public figures are subject to WP:BLP, so more significant, independent, and reliable sources are necessary to avoid serving as the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Beccaynr (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The multiple RS are there. You just don't like what they report on since it's WP:NOTIMPORTANT to you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am interested in legal issues as a general topic, which is why I decided to participate in this discussion. After my research and this discussion, it appears to me that pursuant to the purpose and goals of Wikipedia, as expressed in various policies and guidelines, this article does not meet the standard for inclusion, and that is what is most important to me. My !vote would be different if there was significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and we could write an article in compliance with WP:BLP, but this does not appear possible at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Once was the face of a well-known lawsuit against Match.com for using fake photos with profiles. Picked up by the Daily News, Post and Daily Mail. But with additional notoriety from paywalled coverage in Lincoln's main paper, the love sponge incident, and being highly searched (see source I added), this doesn't work adding to the Match.com article. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Daily news, post and the Daily Lies are all tabloids and coverage there has no relevance to enduring notability. Spartaz Humbug! 09:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - This is an absolute contravention of the BLP policy. Yes, there are sources showing that she had some notoriety, but per policy that’s not enough on its own to merit that we have such content on our site. The limited data in the article currently focuses on her criminal and legal record, and is entirely lacking (beyond job descriptions) in any ability to tell the reader who Harrington is… which is the point of a encyclopedic, biographical article. If more sources can be found, and the article can be flushed out to become an actual biography, then my position would change. But, as it stands, this article has no place on this site… and at a bare minimum should be nuked and begun over. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CoffeeBeans☕️ (I think that's the person's user name? "shrug"). I'm not sure what I can add to what they said, so I'll leave it at that. Except to say that I agree the the sources showing she has some notoriety isn't enough. Especially considering what a lot of the sources are about. It's really against BLP policy IMO to have an article that is 99% about a persons legal issues. In fact, it's borderline an attack page. More so considering the nature of the accusations that are being made against her and the fact that from what I can tell their hasn't been any actual charges against her for any of it. The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to be a celebrity gossip rag. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She's been convicted at least twice for the charges that were levied against her, as noted by Becca, as a result of her publicity seeking. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Really low-level stuff. Spartaz Humbug! 09:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the convictions here are not of a magnitude of lasting notability that I feel we can ignore the drastic BLP issues going on with this article. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:08, 14 January 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_January_3&oldid=1065526363"