Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 04 January 06 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. There is consensus that this should not be a standalone article. There is no consensus on a redirect or which article it should target. This close does not preclude a redirect being created - that can be discussed and settled outside of this AfD. Opening a discussion on a potential target talk page would be a good start. SpinningSpark 19:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AdvanceCOMP[edit]

AdvanceCOMP (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 third party sources, all of those I could find were passing mentions or listings. Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Yes, I believe Black Kite is right. Deletion is one of our options. Believe me, I've recently copyedited it! I know! Waysidesc (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - restore original valid redirect, since it is mentioned in the article, as ATD. Onel5969 TT me 01:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Deflate#Encoder implementations. Thanks go to Black Kite for initiating this AfD--better to discuss here than to edit war. I originally redirected this as an alternative to deletion in response to a PROD. My reasoning was that there is some modest third-party coverage for this project; Softonic has a short review. This, along with evidence of inclusion of AdvanceCOMP in several Linux distributions, was IMO enough verifiability for brief coverage somewhere in WP. As this is also a plausible search term, I thought a redirect to Deflate#Encoder implementations, where it was mentioned, was a reasonable target. I don't understand the hoax, but if there is some inaccuracy in that section, let's fix that and add a citation to back it up. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 01:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Waysidesc, Mark viking: would it be possible to improve the wording? AdvanceComp utilities are using 7-Zip's (indepentant) Deflate backend to do the work. (There's no hoax involved; an equivalent situation would eg. a command-line piece of video software calling ffmpeg to do some MPEG-compatible video encoding; it's multiple specialised front-ends to the same backend software library). —Sladen (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. AdvanceCOMP is not a Deflate implementation. As you said it yourself, it uses something else. FFmpeg is good example: Millions of apps use it right now, including Visual Studio Code. But we do not list those apps under H.264 implementations. Even listing FFmpeg under H.264 implementation would be wrong because FFmpeg uses libx264 itself. Waysidesc (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Waysidesc:. Not sure what the disagreement is… AdvanceCOMP is a bunch of format-specific front-ends for locating a Deflate stream in an existing .zip/PNG/etc and passing that stream through to an existing external library for attempted re-encoding/re-compression. Is the suggestion of a redirect to that existing external library reasonable? —Sladen (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirection alone gives the wrong message to the reader.
Redirection plus mention might fix the message issue. But why list one non-notable front-end and not list dozens of others? PeaZip also uses 7-Zip, so do Inno Setup and Universal Unpacker.
Deletion is the best. Waysidesc (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect for the same reasons as when I PRODded this last summer. The lack of sources remain an issue and per the above, the redirect is an issue to the validity of the relevance to the target article. Star Mississippi 03:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC) ETA: updated to redirect per Sladen's clarification & verification this isn't a hoax. I was fine with Mark viking's redirect in lieu of my Prod and would be fine with it now. Star Mississippi 01:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Zero independent sources now. From looking over the article history, there have NEVER been any independent sources, and certainly no SIGCOV or hint thereof. And this blatantly promotional article's been up for over seventeen years? Ravenswing 08:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - insufficient sources to demonstrate significant coverage and hence does not meet notability guidelines for inclusion. Such-change47 (talk) 09:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it's probably more a case of a semi-frequently-used "boring command-line utility" than a case of malicious promotion. Debian popularity contest data shows it is deployed on about 1% of Debian systems.[1] with a peak in ~2014. It gets a couple of hundred reads a month; if this is heading towards Deletion then a redirect/merge to 7-Zip (a part of which is the backend software library that the AdvanceCOMP utilities rely on). —Sladen (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC) full disclosure: I did a drive-by edit in Special:Diff/86447890 (back in 2006!…) when working through a bunch of compression-related articles—the article seems to have remained in roughly the same state since.[reply]
7-Zip would be a fine redirect target as well. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 23:00, 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 23:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

European Centre for Living Technology[edit]

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

No significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. MarioGom (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Links have been added from other related pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.20.82.55 (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence of significant coverage of the institution itself in independent, reliable sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:04, 12 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 per strong consensus. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 23:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elis Mraz[edit]

Elis Mraz (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)

Participating in ESCZ does not make you notable. Nominating this article after it failed PROD. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:33, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of former Presidents and Chairs of Cambridge Universities Labour Club[edit]

List of former Presidents and Chairs of Cambridge Universities Labour Club (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)

F fails WP:N and WP:V. No sources what-so-ever, minimal if any notability. Article is not suitable encyclopedic content anyway; they may well be original research, and the lists certainly don't meet WP:LISTPEOPLE. Vogon101 (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cantab12 - pinging for discussion here Vogon101 (talk) 22:53, 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 draftify. ✗plicit 23:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trai Hume[edit]

Trai Hume (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 young player who fails WP:GNG (lack of significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (no professional appearances). Signing for a professional club does not change that, he has not played. I moved this to draft a few times but it keeps on getting moved back/re-created so AfD is the only option. Article should be deleted or re-draftified. GiantSnowman 22:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Having seen the discussion at WT:FOOTY about multiple copies of this article, would also support salting the article space name, to prevent re-copying/moving to article space until the player becomes notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely a good idea. Regardless of the merits (or otherwise) of the article notability, the conduct of certain users in moving/re-creating the article has been disruptive. GiantSnowman 16:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ArsenalGhanaPartey: he has no appearances so does not meet NFOOTBALL. On what guideline/policy are you seeking to keep this? GiantSnowman 19:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify May just be WP:TOOSOON; he's on a long contract with his current club and as noted by Joseph above, could easily make his debut in the not too distant and he has made appearances in European competitions (albeit without disturbing NFOOTY). GNG is not quite there as yet. Would also support 'salting' for the time being or 'move-protect'. Eagleash (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per nom and salt mainspace name. AryKun (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft Agree with all the comments above. Govvy (talk) 11:24, 12 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. A possible merge elsewhere can be discussed on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annulus (firestop)[edit]

Annulus (firestop) (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 RemotelyInterested (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no evidence of notability. PianoDan (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does indeed seem to be a thing, and turns up in technical sites: [2], [3], including government standards [4], [5], [6]. There are many, many more - lots of states, cities and counties refer to it in their construction standards. At times it is called "annular" instead of "annulus". The article clearly needs citations (as does the article for Firestop) but there is an embarasse di richesses from what I can tell. Lamona (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a thing, but many references to manufacturer's websites and codes does not automatically provide adequate secondary notability. WP:NOTEVERYTHING RemotelyInterested (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Apologies for my ignorance, what is an "embarasse di richesses"? (Leaning towards keep.) Caleb Stanford (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As mentioned in the article, a synonym for “annular space” when referring to firestops in building science. Possible Merge with Firestop, Fire protection or similar.
    • The term is well-known in the art and likely appears in many patent applications.
    • A quick Google Books search for “firestop annulus” returns published results for that synonym [7], so perhaps a third alternative is moving this to “Annular_space” and adding a redirect at “Annulus”. Jim Grisham (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thanks to the references found by Lamona. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:15, 13 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. The sources brought on by the "keep" !votes fail to convince that this meets NCORP and the "delete" !votes have very strong policy-based arguments. Randykitty (talk) 10:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cielo WiGle[edit]

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

There does not seem to be significant coverage in reliable sources. It does not meet WP:NCORP. Sources brought up in the first AfD to support keep !votes were blogs, passing mentions, "best 10" lists, and routine announcements. MarioGom (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Nothing has been changed since the last AfD that was closed just 3 months ago. I just looked at last Afd comments. [8] is a RS from The Express Tribune. As I mentioned in last discussion, It is an American company with a an office in Pakistan and worldwide market place, in my opinion passes WP:NCORP. Brayan ocaner (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A reference needs to be more than RS, it also needs to meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. That includes WP:ORGIND - since the article you've linked to relies entirely on quotes and information provided by the company and execs, it fails. HighKing++ 16:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a reliable source and was published by a independent reliable magazine in Pakistan and is a report of company. Your reason is not reasonable for rejecting this reference. It completely qualifies criterias for being a RS. صحاسبت (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:05, 5 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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. 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++ 16:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at the article. You can find evidences of notability in article that is being shown by recent references. Because ghe features of them are : deep coverage about company and independent context from reliable sources. صحاسبت (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some citations for this and was added recently, and this significant one from The Express Tribune was written in natural point of view, another from Times of India. It was featured on several Pakistani portals, because of its office in Pakistan and also as other voter told it has worldwide market. Meets WP:NCORP. Alimovvarsu (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This article on The Express Tribune is mostly an interview. There is little independent reporting there. MarioGom (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not definitely an interview! An article along with 2 quotes is not called "Interview"! Most part of article is about the company and give us useful information and there is no need for quotation to be used as reference. The source is focusing on company (significant coverage) on The Express Tribune. صحاسبت (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per HighKing. The Tribune article seems like interview-based promotional "churnalism" to me. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added multiple sourcing to the article. I believe The Express Tribune article is a report that is a RS to demonstrate notability. In first nomination, other sources was mentioned about market of company in Pakistan, USA and other countries of Middle East. These along with the good amount of news coverage from the would constitute substantial coverage, I think. This company is of sufficient notability and source coverage to deserve at least as a stub. صحاسبت (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even the coverage in The Express Tribune many commenters are relying upon to show substantial independent coverage in reliable sources is kind of run of the mill; it's an interview with an executive and coverage of a capitalization round. This is routine corporate stuff, and I echo what User:HighKing was saying earlier. Articles about companies about which little has been said other than "they exist, they make some products, they sell stock" plus interviews with the founders are not valuable as encyclopedia articles and serve no purpose other than to puff up the importance of the company at our collective expense. Wikipedia isn't a fundraising tool or a directory of random companies. FalconK (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete extremely minor startup. The previous keep was based on invalid arguments, including attempts to say that articles entirely about funding met NCORP. it's just the opposite. DGG ( talk ) 06:50, 16 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) 22:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Romanian settlements in Kazakhstan[edit]

List of Romanian settlements in Kazakhstan (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)

Incomplete and largely unsourced article, WP:OR and no need for a separate page for this. Super Ψ Dro 21:03, 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) 21:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicoleta Caragea[edit]

Nicoleta Caragea (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)

As far as I can tell this individual does not meet WP:NPROF. Their highest paper has 19 citations according to GS. I cannot otherwise find a reason why they might meet notability. (t · c) buidhe 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 redirect to Mid-Plains League. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Athletics[edit]

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

Unsourced article about non-notable team per WP:GNG Headphase (talk) 19:40, 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 withdrawn. The nominator indicated that they believe there is enough coverage to improve the article, and indicated a desire to withdraw their nomination. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 20:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2021 IUP Crimson Hawks football team[edit]

2021 IUP Crimson Hawks football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a run-of-the-mill season for a Division II football team that did not make the DII playoffs. Article fails both WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. The only references on the article are from the IUP website so not independent, and one from ESPN with routine coverage. Perhaps a redirect to IUP Crimson Hawks football would work too, since redirects are cheap. Spf121188 (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also a lot of coverage from the school radio station web site (WCCS), but that's not independent. Cbl62 (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cbl62, I'll add that the references you've listed seem to be routine coverage by a newspaper that covers Indiana County, PA. While that is certainly independent, would it be considered routine since they're covering individual games? (The other articles seem to cover other PSAC teams but are covering individual games/performances, but I might be missing something there.) I'm not being patronizing or asking in bad faith, I'm just in agreeance with you that a DII ordinary season more often than not doesn't warrant it's own article space. IUP does have a decent football program, which is why I suggested perhaps it could be redirected to this page. Let me know what you think. Spf121188 (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Spf121188 I'm still unsure about this one. While I generally disfavor season articles on DII teams that don't even make the playoffs, WP:GNG is ultimately the determining guideline. And the depth of coverage on IUP seems to be decent. As noted above, I'm not presently inclined to vote "Keep" but my opinion could be changed if someone were to whip the article into better shape. Cbl62 (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could, if necessary for it to be kept, try to "whip it into shape". What would you want me to do? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm also not a big fan of average Division II team articles. However, it seems that there is sufficient coverage for someone to write a decent article on the team. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 00:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to Withdraw this AfD. I will work with BeanieFan11 to improve this article. I think there is enough coverage of this team/year to improve the readability and reliability of the article, so I will work to help improve it instead. Spf121188 (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great solution. I look forward to seeing the improved article. If I can help with Newspapers.com access, let me know. Cbl62 (talk) 00:00, 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 redirect to International Conference of Marxist–Leninist Parties and Organizations (Unity & Struggle). The keep comments assert notability without providing specific sources, so I can't give them much weight. The other participants prefer or are at least open to redirection as an alternative to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marxist–Leninist Communist Party of Venezuela[edit]

Marxist–Leninist Communist Party of Venezuela (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 political party in Venezuela. Fails WP:NORG as I could not find any sources covering the party. Note that despite the name, this is not the "main" communist party of Venezuela. That honor belongs to the Communist Party of Venezuela. This is an relatively obscure "Hoxhaist" communist party created by people who believe in the Stalinism espoused by the Albanian dictator Enver Hoxha. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There are no sources for that list, which (the list part) hasn't been edited in years... Kingsif (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist to get some consensus. It seems to fail NORG but there has been debate whether to delete or to redirect to International Conference of Marxist–Leninist Parties and Organizations (Unity & Struggle)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TartarTorte 18:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to International Conference of Marxist–Leninist Parties and Organizations (Unity & Struggle). No evidence of significant independent coverage in reliable sources. No evidence of real impact on any political issue, either. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since we're at a 3rd relist, I've made a more cap-in-hand appeal to Soman to cast his eye at this article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - basically, this is the group that broke away from Bandera Roja around 2009, in rejection of the alliances of BR with the opposition. Now we have the same issue as with many other organizations, as a clandestine party virtually all coverage is in the shape of statements and positioning. Parties like this operate through front organizations, there is no electoral participation, no public offices. However, what can be said is that among the friendly parties, there is significant attention to PCMLV. Most notably the coverage in Evrensel (a daily newspaper with significant circulation) could be referred to. --Soman (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability depends on providing sources. Assertions of notability that explain away the lack of sourcing is not generally helpful. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After a borderline canvass of one of the people who created so many Communist microparty stubs, this !vote provides almost no sourcing. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 17:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you wish to call this canvassing, do so; there is no unambiguous definition of that term. But I made the appeal because I couldn't make my mind up about what I though Wikipedia should do with this material. With Soman's input, I now think either keep or an ATD but not delete.
Condemn my appeal if you will, but if it improves this AfD, I'm seeing good and no harm. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep- I was going to vote delete, but looking at the primary sources, and other things people have noted in particualr Soman, this does seem to be a legitimate party involved in regular political activity. There's no information here on how big they are, or if they hold any seats, but I am leaning weak keep in any case. Article does need more work. I'll also note it has survived two attempts at deletion previously as well. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All well and good, @Deathlibrarian:, but what are the independent WP:RS of any of these assertions? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as a WP:ATD. There is the potential for notability, so I'm happy to reconsider if independent coverage is found. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:58, 13 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 due to lack of independent, reliable sources to support WP:GNG notability. RL0919 (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parth Ghorpade[edit]

Parth Ghorpade (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:TOOSOON case. Only passing mentions, lack WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. -Hatchens (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw to neutral due to @Jovanmilic97: and Hemantha.--Venkat TL (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: He participated in multiple international events and also there are many references.--PQR01 (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can somebody more familiar with Indian sources do a review of the independence of the sources here? The series this driver has apparently competed in are not prominent enough to suggest any inherent notability, but they may still meet the WP:GNG. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I didn't know how to evaluate LMP2 Euro Le Mans, but per above, fails WP:NMOTORSPORT. Doesn't pass WP:GNG per my assessement below. --Hemantha (talk) 08:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/racing/top-stories/indias-professional-racing-driver-parth-ghorpade-looks-to-set-the-track-ablaze-with-his-performance-next-season/articleshow/86427939.cms ~ Parts about him are all his own quotes ~ WP:TOI No If his quotes are removed, only his list of races remains. ✘ No
https://www.firstpost.com/sports/meet-parth-ghorpade-indias-newest-motor-racing-sensation-1304269.html No Interview, with a lead listing his races ? No ✘ No
https://www.zigwheels.com/news-features/news/parth-ghorpade-heads-to-ferrari-driver-academy/16264/ No Owned by a car sales company No uncredited No One para quote, rest is race announcement ✘ No
https://www.leblogauto.com/2012/12/bientot-un-champion-de-f1-asiatique.html No says blog No mentions two of his race wins ✘ No
https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/technology/auto/-1805719.html Yes ~ author uncredited No lists his races, one quote ✘ No
https://www.driverdb.com/drivers/parth-ghorpade/ ? ? No database entry ✘ No
https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/technology/auto/-1684117.html Yes ~ author uncredited No routine race coverage, one quote ✘ No
https://www.paddockscout.com/parth-ghorpade-confirms-alps-campaign Yes ? Mostly run by one person No routine race coverage, one quote ✘ No
https://www.euroformulaopen.net/en/news/1581/parth-ghorpade-joins-dav-racing Yes Yes No two paragraph announcement ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
@Hemantha: DriverDB is not a reliable source (for its driver profiles at least, though I wouldn't rely on its articles either). It is mostly user generated (see [9]). A7V2 (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Following Hemantha's source review I feel comfortable voting in favour of deletion, given the lack of apparent sources elsewhere. The European Le Mans Series features teams consisting of a mix of professional and amateur drivers and merely participating in the series is generally not indicative of notability, even if some highly notable drivers do compete in the series. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Contrary to what first two Keep voters said, "participated in multiple international events" doesn't exist as a notability criteria in this case. Hemantha's excellent source analysis says it all about the references in the article (and my searches bring up only passing mentions and WP:ROUTINE announcements). HumanBodyPiloter5's discussion of European Le Mans Series is spot on, and even then, Ghorpade only competed in first two rounds (meaning not even a half of the whole ELMS season). The other tournaments he fully/mostly took part at were only the lower F1 junior feeder series ones. Fails WP:NMOTORSPORT and WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject seems notable participated in Formula 4, Formula Abarth, Formula Three and other Internationally known Racing Tournaments. Passes WP:GNG, WP:NSPORT. DMySon (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, participating in multiple international tournaments (all low-tier junior feeders at that) isn't of any criteria in WP:NSPORT. Also, he never participated in Formula 3, will remove such a claim. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not disputing anything here, but Euroformula was a Formula Three series when Ghorpade raced in it. MSport1005 (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Lacks significant coverage, as demonstrated quite clearly in Hemantha's table. Keep !votes are not policy-based and all say something to the effect of "he participated in multiple international events", but notability is not inherited. 5225C (talk • contributions) 11:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hemantha. Continuing to argue that GNG is met without providing further sources is pointless given Hemantha's analysis of the sources. Also doesn't meet either the current NMOTORSPORT or the as yet unimplemented revised version. A7V2 (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MSport1005 has said that this Euroformula race was F3 at the time it happened. Then it means he had raced in a notable race. @5225C@A7V2 @Hemantha @Jovanmilic97@HumanBodyPiloter5 what do you think? Venkat TL (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not inherited. The subject has not received coverage to fulfill the general notability guideline. Therefore the subject does not deserve an article. My !vote remains unchanged. 5225C (talk • contributions) 10:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are misunderstanding Formula Three (which Euroformula ran under) with GP3 Series/FIA Formula 3 Championship. WP:NMOTORSPORT is not satisfied in his case, and wouldn't be even if he raced in an actual F3 (revised motorsport guidelines would clear him only if he either raced a full season in F2 or got a podium). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Euroformula is an exceedingly minor series; today I would call it a fifth-tier series, in the past it may have been a fourth-tier series or a sixth-tier series; regardless, competitors in Euroformula are very rarely public figures and if they are it's because of factors outside of their racing careers. To all extents and purposes it is an amateur competition. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the risk of pointless piling on (though I was pinged...), if we assume for a moment that having participated in Euroformula was sufficient to pass NMOTORSPORT, then we would expect to find reliable sources giving substantial coverage. As yet, none has been presented. The sourcing we do have does not satisfy the GNG, as shown above (and has not been refuted). Also for the record (if there is one!) I am of the opinion that Euroformula Open is of the general level of F3 (in both its former and current iterations) and would say that saying someone who drove in it drove in Formula 3 (even now) is not a misleading statement, but it is still just a junior level, not enough to satisfy NMOTORSPORT. A7V2 (talk) 13:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's stretching it a fair bit. My comment was just a tiny nitpick and I wasn't trying to make a point in any way—the fact that EFO was a Formula Three series at the time doesn't mean everyone who's raced in it is notable. The most notable thing Ghorpade's ever done remains two races in ELMS as a silver driver for a team that barely made the top 10. MSport1005 (talk) 15:22, 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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Birth of a Nation (1983 film)[edit]

Birth of a Nation (1983 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)

I couldn't find any independent coverage from reliable sources. The helper5667 (talk) 17:46, 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 00:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Murphy[edit]

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

He's made a number of appearances on local news and received some minor coverage for winning a Regional Emmy, but these do not count toward notability since there are so many handed out. There was minor coverage for making a sexist joke but I don't think this is significant. The article reads more as a promotional resume. Reywas92Talk 19:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Although the article does need additional citations for verification in spots, there is not enough to support the excessive act of article deletion. Jackson Murphy has had enough publicly notable moments including those mentioned in the nomination for deletion that would cause one to seek further information on him as a subject. Reasons for deletion dictate "improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page." Additionally, when to not use deletion process? further supports the notion the deletion process is not necessary for articles in "bad shape," as well as stating articles one is "not interested in" is not enough justification to initiate the deletion process. Rick P •— PicksonR (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Weak Delete - local Emmys only, he insulted Amy Schumer with some really sexist remark, and does some (bad apparently) movie reviews. I can certainly imagine when his career develops (hopefully in a positive direction), but at the moment, I think this is WP:TOOSOON. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I have to say that the article is WP:TOOSOON despite winning local Emmys, and the mentions of this reviewer using sexist remarks toward Amy Schumer in 2016 and criticism about a review for the film Inception from the reviewer's tweenage years. Pahiy (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be clear he got one local Emmy – that year the New York regional gave out over 100 awards, many of which to multiple people. Reywas92Talk 23:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't see how WP:NENT is met or WP:GNG. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not coming up with sufficient sources to support notability. He garnered some attention years ago for being a child movie reviewer, typical novelty coverage. The Schumer incident is tabloid fodder but not significant. Doesn't meet WP:NENT or WP:BASIC. Schazjmd (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the subject has only trivial media mentions and insufficient coverage to demonstrate notability. Getting media attention for some tweets is not cause for inclusion in an Encyclopaedia-Such-change47 (talk) 09:52, 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 no consensus. and none likely to emerge with established editors making policy-based cases for both sides of the issue. Star Mississippi 20:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC) ETA following conversation about my close with JoelleJay, I am explicitly noting that I have no issue with this being renominated if participants or nominator think a different outcome is likely quickly. This appeared to be cleaner than an additional relist. Star Mississippi 18:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Dennis (soccer)[edit]

Amanda Dennis (soccer) (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)

Footballer who played 1 game at the senior level before announcing her retirement. Barely scrapes through NFOOTY, completely fails GNG. BlameRuiner (talk) 08:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree with nomination. Nowhere near to satisfying WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly passes WP:NFOOTY. Seany91 (talk) 10:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We need to be reasonable in our inclusion criteria. With actors and actresses we require "multiple" "signifiacnt" roles in "Notable" productions. There is no reason we should allow just one game to make a sportperson notable. We should use reason in evaluating articles, and any reasonable standard says delete articles in most cases on people who made just one top level game.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete (Vote struck, view changed) It seems like more and more as of late we have people with 1 appearance being nominated who are ostensibly notable under WP:NFOOTY per Players who have played, and managers who have managed, in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues will generally be regarded as notable, which has become an increasingly problematic criterion. It seems to make sense for someone who is still a current footballer, but for retired players, it could be a bit much to have an article for anyone who has ever played in a match between two fully professional teams as that is tens-of-thousands of people. I think that the main argument I have for deletion here is lack of chance for expansion with her retirement with no indication of coming out of retirement. If she does come out of retirement, article could always be retrieved via WP:REFUND, but without any overtures of her coming out of retirement, I have to vote delete. snood1205 15:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: AfD is not the appropriate place to be WP:LAWYERING over a policy like WP:NFOOTY or randomly making up new interpretations like current vs. retired players. Especially concerning female footballers, we've seen hundreds of AfDs where broso editors argued strongly for NFOOTY as the primary reason for deletion; now here's a case where the subject clearly and unequivocally passes NFOOTY, and suddenly the wikilawyering starts. I'm personally all for re-evaluating NFOOTY and many woso editors have been arguing for precisely that to no avail, but I'll say here what woso editors have been told many times: until there is consensus for changing it, NFOOTY should be applied as it is written. Seany91 (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to clarify that I am not denying that the person meets notability per WP:NFOOTY; however, one who meets a WP:SNG must eventually meet WP:GNG and with her being a modern-era, retired player, it is just incredibly unlikely that despite meeting a WP:SNG she will eventually come to meet WP:GNG. I do see how my comment can be WP:LAWYERING, but my comment re retired and current players is more with regards to how WP:NFOOTY eventually would translate into WP:GNG. The difference being with a retired player, especially a recently retired player, if they do not currently meet WP:GNG it is very unlikely they will in the future. My arguments for this largely comes from other AfDs I have participated in recently where just passing WP:NFOOTY does not seem to have been enough to keep, for example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edvin Dahlqvist or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Sørensen (footballer, born 1989). I'm more just trying to find where WP:NFOOTY is sufficient versus where WP:GNG is required. snood1205 15:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I appreciate the explanation and my comment was not directed towards you personally. Nonetheless, my point remains that your wondering-out-loud should be reserved for WT:NFOOTY. As for NFOOTY vs. GNG, here's my personal observation: even leaving aside that NFOOTY is already systematically biased against female footballers, many editors still make their own NFOOTY vs. GNG distinction in a biased way against female footballers. Seany91 (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • No-one ever tries to delete women's sports articles on here and says: "I'm a bigoted incel. I'm angry at the world because I have a micropenis and/or my mom never cuddled me enough. So I punch down at female athletes on Wikipedia." Although I suspect oftentimes that's clearly the subtext. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am unable to view this article but it looks like it may have SIGCOV. Can anyone confirm? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @GiantSnowman: ;) Seany91 (talk) 09:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It appears to be a fairly in-depth interview of the subject at hand done by a student newspaper. I have to say I am a little concerned that the sourcing on the article will be a bit thin (I agree with John Pack Lambert's concerns), but this piece definitely constitutes WP:SIGCOV imo. Also @Seany91: please sign your comments and don't taunt another editor in the future, that's not civil or productive to discussion. Jay eyem (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Jay eyem: GS asked editors to ping him if sources are found, so I did. Please withdraw your unfounded accusation of incivility, thanks. Seany91 (talk) 09:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is not unfounded. It is quite literally the definition of WP:IUC 2a and the linked definition at wiktionary. Unless you think it is normal to respond to people using mocking emoticons for some reason, I see no reason to withdraw that. Also, I'd appreciate an explanation of what "broso" is as well, because there is no WP:BROSO page and the only link besides this page goes to Birgit Brosø and I suspect that is not that to which you were referring. It could come across as a portmanteau of "BRO" and "SOccer" so I just wanted some clarification there. Jay eyem (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Jay eyem: An important cornerstone of the policy you quoted is "assume good faith." I've laid out my explanation, and with the caveat that interpreting personal communication style on a written message board is always a crapshoot, I must say the emoticon is not mocking in any way from my POV. If you cannot assume good faith from me and chose to interpret that as mocking or taunting, that's your choice. Your guess regarding the portmanteau is correct, however ;) Seany91 (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • It is precisely that portmanteau which makes it difficult to assume good faith. Instead of assuming good faith on behalf of other editors, you chose to use a personal attack by linking WP:FOOTY editors to a common pejorative. And winking emoticons are well understood to communicate sarcasm, so unless you have some playful relationship with GiantSnowman (which is not readily apparent here, and if that is the case I'll strike my comments), then that easily comes across as taunting, whether or not it is what you intended. Jay eyem (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm sorry, this is just hilarious (and to make it 100% clear I'm not attacking you personally or whatever). Somehow you seem to forget editors involved in WP:FOOTY also include people who are primarily interested in women's soccer. And editing on WP is primarily supposed to be fun. And that woso and broso are common shorthands used in online communities in a fun and not prerogative way – and if you want to take it that way, maybe think about why you're taking it so personally somehow when you have had little involvement in editing woso articles on here in the past, so maybe that characterization is not entirely untrue... And why, having had no active investment in woso articles on here, that you're so involved now in an AfD for a woso article... Given the systematic bias on women-centric articles on WP (well documented, not just restricted to soccer), why some woso editors with a long history of dealing with this might get annoyed from time to time. And that you're a third party somehow jumping in to defend GS, when we seem to be fine all along. (Full disclosure: GS and I have both agreed and disagreed plenty of times in the past, if you want to check.) Seany91 (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  • "broso" is absolutely not common usage on wikipedia. A search for the term in the project namespace returns only this conversation and Birgit Brosø. And you've just acknowledged to using a commonly used pejorative term, ironically, in a discussion about bias. Is there systemic gender bias on Wikipedia? Yes. Has this been discussed extensively in relation to football? Yes. Is that an excuse for incivility towards other editors? No. As for my involvement at AfD, I watch the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football, which is why I came across it. And since GS seems fine with your emoticon, I'll strike my comment. But my criticism of "broso" remains: it's an insult, whether or not you intend it that way. Jay eyem (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also pinging @Jay eyem, @Seany91, @Snood1205, @Coolabahapple, @Pharaoh of the Wizards. That article is just an interview in a student newspaper at her institution, making it fail the requirements for GNG on three levels. JoelleJay (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I would dispute that it is not independent, since it is a student run publication. Granted I don't know the specifics, but I know that the Lantern at tOSU and the Daily at UM are both completely independent of their respective universities, so I just assume this would be similar. As far as reliability is concerned, I don't know where that concern comes from with regards to interviewing a college athlete but that's not my area of expertise. I'll say that I don't think a single interview by a student-run paper that presumably regularly interviews student athletes really merits inclusion on Wikipedia, but since she also technically passes WP:NFOOTY I'd rather wait to see if more sources can be found than to !vote. Jay eyem (talk) 06:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Student newspapers are not independent of the student body from which they draw editors, nor are they actually independent of the university beyond asserting some degree of editorial independence (even The Lantern has a faculty adviser). They have long been held non-reliable for considerations of notability (see these recent administrator closes here and here); the latter AfD close explicitly says The result was delete. consensus has consistently been that local and student newspapers are not sufficient for the notability of local student athletes. And meeting NFOOTY is irrelevant once notability is challenged. JoelleJay (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree in part. Consensus has long been that student newspapers are not independent for GNG purposes. However, there is no such consensus with respect to local newspapers. To the contrary, multiple efforts to import a WP:AUD element into WP:GNG have been soundly rejected. Cbl62 (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok genuine question, where does this consensus for student newspapers not being independent or reliable come from? I did see the two AfDs posted, but was not entirely swayed by the merits of the arguments made therein. I can understand the concerns about reliability (you wouldn't necessarily expect high quality journalism from students), but these papers are independent, both editorially and (at least for the Daily) financially. So from a policy perspective, where does this argument come from? Where is the discussion that these sources have been deprecated besides a couple of AfDs? Jay eyem (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been monitoring American football AfDs for more than a decade, and it's long been commonly accepted there that content from student newspapers concerning the school's athletes fail WP:IS. The rationale is that students of XYZ College writing about athletes at XYZ College lack the requisite independence. Cbl62 (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We require independent sources because those that are affiliated with the subject cannot be expected to evaluate or reflect the subject's real-world importance. To that end, we don't consider coverage published on someone by members of their own organization, particularly those acting as representatives of their organization, to be independent. Alumni newsletters, profiles of awardees by the awarding org, profiles of contestants published by sponsors of their contest, coverage of a business by a newspaper that receives ad revenue from the business...none of these should be used for notability. Just because the college doesn't legally dictate the content or directly support the paper doesn't mean it is "independent" in the sense of the term used by Wikipedia. Student newspapers are specifically aimed at, funded by, and focused on the interests of members of their university. The faculty advisers and board are still paid by the university, the student editors are tens of thousands of dollars in debt to invested in the university, the student athlete makes money for the university; ultimately they have a clear financial relationship with their university in a way that, e.g., a local newspaper does not. JoelleJay (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've raised the topic at RSN here. JoelleJay (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay eyem, Cbl62, Seany91, Snood1205, Pharaoh of the Wizards, Spiderone, S.A. Julio, Keskkonnakaitse, Chumpih, GiantSnowman, and Geschichte: JoelleJay (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I expect this will sway anyone who hasn't already responded to my incessant pings, but the consensus at RSN, with six participants, is a unanimous "student media is never acceptable for use in determining notability of fellow students". So that leaves us with the 3-4-sentence summaries of PSU press releases in a hyperlocal paper of her junior training camp attendance and early PSU enrollment, the PSU press release that was directly copied over to We Are Central PA, the Q&A she submitted to TDS when she was 15 and committed to PSU, a press release from her club about her attending a training camp, the 3 sentences on WTAJ/Local DVM describing a PSU tweet on her signing, a six-sentence blurb in The Striker Texas on her signing by a reporter dedicated to reporting all Houston Dash transactions, and a profile in a PSU student blog. JoelleJay (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with Jay's assessment of lack of independence and would argue that it should meet WP:IS. With regards to it being an interview, there are quotes from her, but there are also paragraphs of text that are interspersed, so it's not as much an interview as an article will some quotes. I think that if we ignore the quotes as a form of WP:SPS then it also passes WP:V. I guess the question as to whether or not it would count for a WP:GNG source is if it is considered WP:RS. There is nothing that would make me inherently doubt it being reliable, but I cannot say for certain as I do not know the editorial standards at the paper. snood1205 18:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    GNG and NSPORT are very clear that notability can only be achieved with sources that are independent. From NSPORT: A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Student newspapers, as far as I know, have never been considered independent of their institutions/the student body with respect to notability (this recent close explicitly documents the consensus: The result was delete. consensus has consistently been that local and student newspapers are not sufficient for the notability of local student athletes.) JoelleJay (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Realized I never pinged @Spiderone. JoelleJay (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per the hundreds of AfDs on male footballers who played 1 game. So little gameplay fails the spirit of NFOOTBALL, and lack of coverage stems from that, so the subject doesn't meet any other guideline either. The collegian.psu.edu source would probably not be regarded as independent, and being interviewed by news outlets one or two times don't cut the guideline. Geschichte (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while I could only find one really good source on Dennis (above), which consequently means that I can't prove that she meets WP:GNG, I do believe that meeting WP:NFOOTBALL should be enough. As others have stated, there are very few WP:FPL women's leagues so I actually believe that those that have played in such a league are a relatively exclusive club. In much the same vein, I always support the keeping of footballers that have received a full international cap, even in the cases where it can't be proved for definite that they meet GNG, the fact that they have played the sport at such a high level makes them notable based on their achievements in the sport. I admit that this isn't my most scientific vote, especially given my stance on players that have played 1 or 2 games in men's football and then disappeared but it's just my thought on the matter. I don't expect any of this to gain traction but it's worth discussing in a civil manner anyway. Speaking of which, some of the comments above really lack civility, which is a shame. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do see the argument from the article above. It definitely is WP:SIGCOV and to be honestly it's a lot more than many of the WP:NFOOTY one appearance noms are. It's not necessarily WP:GNG, but I do respect the argument for keep. It's honestly a difficult situation one way or the other, but I think that the combination of arguments since I've been involved with the AfD. I'm going to strike my !vote. I want to keep, but also I feel that I need to hold a similar standard that I have been holding elsewhere. I think I will vote keep. While it is important to hold to the same standard, there is not the same WP:SIGCOV, even if just from one article, on many of the other AfDs I've !voted delete in. Some amalgam of WP:NFOOTY and WP:IAR is my rationale. snood1205 03:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, does Dennis meet WP:NFOOTY? yes (although some editors above appear to be muddying the waters by suggesting that she only just meets it}, but occasionally some editors who concentrate on a sng seem to disregard WP:SPORTBASIC ie. "A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources ...", the discussion above emphasises one solid source but that is not "multiple", until another is found this looks like delete. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify, is this a comment or a vote? Seany91 (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepper Spiderone passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are zero independent secondary SIGCOV sources in this discussion. The article in the Daily Collegian solidly fails on multiple criteria: it is a student newspaper, which is almost never an RS for notability of anything; it is a student newspaper at her institution, and therefore not independent; and it is an interview, which is neither independent nor secondary. JoelleJay (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – my !vote follows along with Spiderone above. At the end of the day, what we're here on Wikipedia to do is to write an encyclopedia. Dennis meets WP:NFOOTY, one of our guidelines for inclusion on said encyclopedia. We are able to write a sourced, readable biography with the sources that exist online. With all that in mind, I feel that there is absolutely no reason to delete this article. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Except NFOOTY does not supersede GNG, which she decidedly does not meet. JoelleJay (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. As noted above, articles published in student newspapers at the school attended by the subject do not suffice, as such publications have long been held to lack independence. Cbl62 (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree with Spiderone, and I think Dennis does meet WP:GNG. I was able to find some independent, secondary SIGCOV sources (examples here, here, here, here, here, here and here). She represented the United States at youth international level, signed a professional contract, played professionally for two seasons in one of the highest-level women's football leagues in the world, was a substitute for 15 games and played a full match as a professional. Outside of the regular starters, goalkeepers tend to make fewer appearances than outfielders. It is not as though her career as a first team squad member lasted 5 minutes, as we have seen with some footballers with 1 appearance being deleted, she was with a top-level professional team for 2 years. S.A. Julio (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several of the new sources either lack the required depth (e.g, this) or are questionable as reliable sources (e.g., (this) but there's enough for me to withdraw my "delete" vote and leave the notability call to those more knowledgeable about soccer. Cbl62 (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The three Centre Daily Times sources are a) routine b) shallow signing coverage c) derived directly from press releases from the athletic department and therefore do not contribute to GNG. The We Are Central PA source is identical in format to the university's roster bios and so is obviously not independent. The Patch.com source is literally a news release from the team she was signing to ("—News release submitted by Arsenal FC and Elite Clubs National League") so does not count whatsoever. The Local DVM source is four very brief sentences of signing coverage = not SIGCOV. All of this is utterly routine media attention for college athletes. I stand by my delete !vote and would encourage @Cbl62 to reconsider. JoelleJay (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the sources provided at the end.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • was Keep I'm swayed by S.A. Julio's comments. (And the discourse re. GS above was entertaining) Chumpih t 21:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC) + changed 2022-01-08 21:32[reply]
    Delete. Given the robust rebuttal from JoelleJay below, including a detailed analysis of sources and opinions garnered from WP:RSN, it seems reasonable to suggest the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. JoelleJay's analysis that the WP:NSPORT is a facilitator and stopgap until completion comes along seems plausible (although I'm not convinced that folks are just in it for the big stats). That said, WP:SNG explicitly defers to other guidelines, and the ones for WP:NFOOTY are agreed, but I don't see an explicit trail of deference to WP:NFOOTY there. Chumpih t 21:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the attempted ping by @Seany91: above didn't work, as there was no signature. I've only just come back to this discussion by accident and missed all the drama - it would have been nice if somebody else had attempted to notify me about it all. FWIW I don't view the ';)' emoticon as being anything other than good natured. Back on topic - I think enough coverage has now been found for the subject to be notable and therefore I suggest we keep it. GiantSnowman 22:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's an experienced editor: successfully making the ping haha! Thanks, GS. :) Seany91 (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I apologize for making that assumption. To me, I immediately saw it as taunting (as I would in most every other case). I've seen how rapidly AfDs can get out of hand and how rarely WP:CIVILITY gets enforced which is why I spoke up. Jay eyem (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay eyem: - no apology needed, I appreciate you jumping to my defence! GiantSnowman 10:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GiantSnowman, are you seriously saying the four sentences (refactored from a Penn State tweet) discussing Dennis in the Local DVM blurb make her meet GNG?! Because that is the only independent source identified in this AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 04:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The overall coverage is significant to confer notability IMHO. GiantSnowman 10:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Almost none of the other sources are independent, though. JoelleJay (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I absolutely hate the "articles which pass the SNG but fail GNG should be deleted" bullshit. If passing the SNG is meaningless and the only thing that matters is passing GNG, then we should just delete all SNGs, because they serve no purpose except to cause confusion. If, however, SNGs do serve a purpose, then we should stop fucking ignoring them. She passes the SNG, her article gets to stay. GNG can kiss my ass. Mlb96 (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The SNG is NSPORT, which explicitly says GNG is required and that the sport-specific guidelines just presume SIGCOV.
    First sentence: 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.
    Applicable policies and guidelines section: All information included in Wikipedia, including articles about sports, must be verifiable. 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.
    FAQ 1 (collapsed at top of page):

    Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline?
    A1: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline.

    FAQ 2:

    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.

    FAQ 5:

    Q5: The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met?
    A5: No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. This sentence is just emphasizing that the article must always cite reliable sources to support a claim of meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, whether it is the criteria set by the sports-specific notability guidelines, or the general notability guideline.

    This allows people to create articles that don't start out with the notability sourcing required for other subjects; but once notability is challenged GNG sourcing (or extremely strong evidence such sourcing exists but is unavailable) must be produced. JoelleJay (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a horrendous description, it's totally self-contradictory. It calls itself a "notability standard" but then says that it isn't actually one and should be completely ignored. Why does it exist at all? Just fucking delete it if it serves no purpose. Mlb96 (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is my explanation of the nuances of NSPORT from another AfD:

    Per NSPORT: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. In other words, the purpose of the SNG is so mass article creators can pad their stats quicker an article may be in mainspace sourced only to refs that verify the subject meets the SNG, such as databases, without the threat of immediate A7 deletion or AfD challenge. Other biographies with such sourcing should very quickly attract scrutiny from NPP/AfC reviewers/general patrolling editors, but if the SportsRef Stamp of Approval is there editors are much less likely to put in the effort to investigate whether the subject actually meets GNG. It also gives editors a bit more leeway with how long they can take to find offline/untranslated/etc. SIGCOV. But once notability is challenged, those who want to retain the article are expected to produce GNG sourcing or provide a very credible claim that SIGCOV exists (like pointing to a specific book that isn't accessible online but would be expected to contain adequate coverage).

    JoelleJay (talk) 05:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, this is still self-contradictory. It prevents "the threat of immediate AfD challenge" but if notability is challenged then GNG sourcing must be provided. The first statement cannot possibly be true if the second statement is true, because someone could bring an article to AfD immediately and then the SNG accomplishes nothing. I reiterate that if your interpretation is correct, then NSPORTS should be scrapped entirely. And because I do not think NSPORTS needs to be scrapped, I disagree with your interpretation. Mlb96 (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, most other athlete AfD regulars and more importantly closing admins actually do understand the nuances and purpose of NSPORT, as evidenced in the numerous closes explicitly stating as much in both NFOOTY and other sport AfDs. A small sampling of just the recent articles I participated in/watched: Edvin Dahlqvist, Wei Changsheng, Raphael Noway, Francis English, Rafael Dias (I'll paste the entirety of this one: The result was delete. JoelleJay's interpretation of GNG is spot-on per sitewide consensus, and is sufficiently supported in this discussion.), Tony Frias, Lambert Golightly, Atul Raghav, Prateek Sinha, Salman Saeed (The result was delete. Whether or not the subject passes NCRIC becomes moot when notability is challenged. SNGs serve as shortcuts to determine which subjects are likely to pass GNG, but once challenged, sources have to show that GNG actually is met.), John Ford, Shahid Ilyas, Mohammad Laeeq, Obaidullah Sarwar (The result was delete. As pointed out by a number of editors, passing an SNG is irrelevant if an article doesn't pass GNG.), and Qaiser Iqbal. JoelleJay (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So in other words, NSPORT is a waste of bytes and serves no purpose except to be confusing? Sorry, but I don't accept that. A paradox doesn't start to make sense just because a bunch of people insist that it does. Mlb96 (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Its "intended" purpose is so editors can create articles on people whose GNG-meeting sources might be difficult to find but which we can be 95% sure do exist. The thought is that if an article is already created, it's a) easier for future readers to come across, and b) easier for future, potentially inexperienced, editors who do have access to sources to expand (rather than create a new article). This is "supposed" to increase representation of people who come from under-covered/non-English regions or from time periods where coverage isn't digitized. But the reason I used scare quotes above is because in reality, for about as long as the guideline has existed, the vast majority of articles that demonstrate meeting NSPORT (through links to databases with evidence of pro caps, etc.) but do not start out with GNG sources are produced by (often autopatrolled) editors who never even attempt to look for SIGCOV, even for contemporary athletes for whom coverage could be found in seconds, because they're focused on mass-creation to pad their own creation stats. Many of these microstubs are never expanded because why would someone want to put in the effort of bringing an obscure athlete to start class? And if they do try to add refs but can't find SIGCOV, well, the type of editor who goes around trying to expand obscure athlete microstubs is unlikely to also nominate such things for deletion, and anyway they may also just assume SIGCOV exists but isn't accessible to them. Conversely, the editors who do nominate things for AfD aren't incentivized to verify a microstub athlete actually meets GNG because NSPORT presumes 95% of them do. So what ends up happening is the mass article creators get to pad their stats with the comfort of knowing their low-effort contributions are unlikely to be deleted; the editors actually focused on countering systemic bias can be relatively confident their articles will stick around and perhaps a hypothetical future editor with access to local offline paper coverage will eventually expand them; and the only articles that get brought to AfD are already borderline cases for an SSG criterion or meet a criterion that has been identified as inadequate (this is why there has been a flurry of NFOOTY deletions of players who only played one pro match--at some point recently we discovered this wasn't actually a reliable predictor of GNG in many leagues). I hope this explanation helps. JoelleJay (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can !voters please explain how this source assessment is incorrect instead of just asserting she has SIGCOV in multiple IRS?


Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Interview/profile in a student newspaper No Per consensus from numerous AfDs, student newspapers are not considered independent of their university with respect to notability of university-affiliated subjects. Yes Probably considered reliable for facts Yes Commentary on the subject by the author (as opposed to quotes from the subject) seems substantial enough ✘ No
Centre Daily Times announcement "Goalie to train with U.S. soccer team" No Refactored PSU press release in local paper Yes No Routine 3-sentence U-18 training camp announcement ✘ No
Centre Daily Times announcement "Dennis added to U.S. U-19 roster" ~ Unclear if this is just refactored from a PSU press release Yes No Routine 3-sentence U-19 training camp announcement ✘ No
Centre Daily Times announcement "PSU announces early enrollees" No Refactored PSU press release Yes No Mentions 2 players that will be attending PSU WS spring practices, then quotes two sentences from the coach ✘ No
We Are Central PA announcement "Nittany Nuggets: Women’s Soccer sees two enroll early" No Consists of the PSU press release from source 4 plus a straight copy of her bio on the PSU WS roster page Yes No Routine bio blurb ✘ No
Top Drawer Soccer blurb "Girls commitments: U15 GNT GK to PSU" No Athletes submit their college commitments to TDS, then TDS interviews them. There are just 3 sentences by the article author. ~ Unclear where TDS stands with regards to its freelance writers for college/youth news No Canned quotes from the subject on how she decided on PSU as a 15yo do not have requisite depth ✘ No
Patch-hosted press release "Murrieta player selected to attend national soccer training camp" No Literally states "—News release submitted by Arsenal FC and Elite Clubs National League" Yes No Consists only of extremely shallow background info (her high school, the U15 club she plays for), quotes by her and about her from her coaches about being excited/proud (no depth), and a description of the training camp ✘ No
Local DVM post "Another Penn State women's soccer player is going pro" ~ Largely just restating a PSU tweet Yes No 5 sentences, of which 3 are on her: "Goalkeeper Amanda Dennis signed with the Houston Dash Monday. She started three seasons in the net for Penn State winning 45 games and pitching 24 shutouts. She joins Kaleigh Riehl in the pro ranks from the 2019 team." ✘ No
The Striker Texas blurb on her signing Yes Yes No 6 sentences of routine transaction coverage by a journalist dedicated specifically to covering Houston Dash transactions, on a website "devoted to covering all levels of the sport across the Lone Star State" (for example, there is a lengthy profile on the coach of the winning Ford Copita Alianza U9 team) ✘ No
Two articles in Onward State No "PSU news by Penn State's student blog" No Blog Yes ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

JoelleJay (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG based on the solid sources/reasoning of S.A. Julio and Spiderone. We can see from a recent relevant AfD for another football goalkeeper that for some editors no sourcing in these cases will ever be good enough and will always be derided as trivial, routine, unreliable, non-independent etc. etc. In reality it's exactly the sort of coverage you would expect to be thrown off by a notable professional athlete. After all, 99% of all journalism is rehashed press releases or interviews! Especially in the "toy department" of the news media. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are well aware that we regularly delete one-appearance pro football players with as much or more coverage (e.g. pulling from recent NFOOTY AfDs: Tony Frias, who had a full-length article in the Boston Globe on top of the exact kind of transactional coverage Dennis has in the CDT and WTAJ pieces; Edvin Dahlqvist with numerous transactional pieces). You yourself have !voted to delete such players! In fact, you've nominated several of them (so I can be sure you actually looked at the sources and discarded them as not SIGCOV). Like goalkeeper Magnus Lenes, who, among many other news pieces, had a whole article in Hamar Arbeiderblad on his training with HamKam. Or Andreas Evjen, where you dismissed full-page article on him and a half-page hybrid interview as "local, routine coverage". Or Tore Kallstad, where you said an article covering his performance specifically and a 1/3 page article interviewing and discussing his and two others' stonewalling on coach negotiations fall short of the sustained, non-trivial coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Or Joar Hoff, whose sources (including this full front-page interview, this other front-page interview/profile, a third full front-page interview, and a full-page story covering in detail a football training course he led with a whole section of commentary on you specifically his approach) you called lightweight sports-reporting fluff, falling short of WP:GNG but which Spiderone described as Not even close to failing WP:GNG.

    So how can you possibly assert Dennis has "solid coverage" meeting the strict independence requirements of GNG from 1) a profile in her university's student newspaper; 2) a 3-sentence PSU press release summary hosted in a hyper-local paper on her attending a U-18 training camp; 3) a 4-sentence PSU press release summary hosted in a hyper-local paper about her and another student attending spring practices; a 4) 3-sentence PSU press release summary hosted in a hyper-local paper about her attending a U-19 training camp; 5) a WTAJ "article" that is literally a direct copy of a PSU press release; 6) 4 "independent" sentences by a TDS freelancer summarizing her self-submitted commitment to PSU; 7) a press release directly from her youth club; 8) a WTAJ "article" with 3 sentences on her derived from a PSU tweet? JoelleJay (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this is quite the "gotcha" you seem to think it is, given that consensus went against me in those discussions and the articles were kept? Clearly this article has better sourcing than they did. Anyway, perhaps you should emulate what I did there by having your say and then accepting the result gracefully. Trying to dominate and control the discussion by rebutting every !vote you disagree with (with a verbose 'wall of text') is pretty tiresome. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is it "clear" Dennis has better sourcing than the AfDs that were kept? Like specifically, which sources are both independent and SIGCOV? JoelleJay (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have read and agree with the assessment of sources. No interest in footy of either gender - just whether or not an AFD meets guidelines or not. This does not, and so it should go. Open to changing my vote if someone can explain how that source assessment table is incorrect. - Such-change47 (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, the arguments made and sources listed by Spiderone and S. A. Julio plus the SNG pass make me lean towards a weak keep. (Other sources not mentioned above that I found: Houston Dash goalkeeper Amanda Dennis from The Striker Texas; Penn State Women’s Soccer’s Amanda Dennis Signs With NWSL’s Houston Dash and Amanda Dennis Leading Penn State Soccer’s Veteran Defense from Onward State (PSU student newspaper?); and Another Penn State women’s soccer player is going pro from WTAJ News.) BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Onward State says it's "PSU news by Penn State's student blog", definitely neither independent nor RS. I already covered the 38-word WTAJ release in my analysis. The Striker piece seems to be the best so far, but at 5ish sentences directly on her it is far from SIGCOV, and I'm generally hesitant to consider articles by sources exclusively dedicated to covering all news related to a specific team as truly representative of real-world notability. JoelleJay (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, an editor has asked me above (hi Seany91) the following question (i am responding here as it is above the "relist"): "To clarify, is this a comment or a vote?", i (like other editors) do not "vote" at an afd, but rather recommend a course of action ie. "keep", "delete", "redirect", "merge", and so on, often, as in this afd, i precede this with a "comment". ps. my "delete" notavote still stands. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Passing WP:NFOOTBALL is irrelevant as all subjects must pass WP:GNG as is clearly stated in WP:NSPORTS. JoelleJay's assessment of the sources is spot on. Alvaldi (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NFOOTBALL, which is the current law of the land. Whether or not that WP:NFOOTBALL is reasonable is a separate discussion. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrsSnoozyTurtle, that is incorrect and not in line with how athletes have been assessed at AfD for at least a year. Please see this comment I made in this thread quoting the text of NSPORT, and this other comment I made in this thread citing just a few examples of athletes meeting an NSPORT guideline who were deleted and where the closer reiterated NSPORT's relationship with GNG (many, many more are closed without contention). JoelleJay (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the examples in your second link. However they do not provide clear-cut evidence of your claims. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrsSnoozyTurtle Which claims? What would you consider more clear-cut? Those are 15 recent athlete AfDs that I happened to participate in/watch where the athlete met NFOOTY or NCRIC or whatever but not GNG and the closers all explicitly reference the longstanding consensus that NSPORT does not supersede GNG. There are plenty of other examples of closers making such statements I didn't include, as well as ones where the outcome was so clear it didn't warrant more than "The result was delete" but where !voters specifically state meeting an NSPORT SSG doesn't matter if GNG is failed. GiantSnowman even has a boilerplate !vote he uses specifically for people who meet NFOOTY through just a couple appearances: there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. JoelleJay (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Surprised it took over 9 hours for this "actually..." to arrive :) Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage, as illustrated by JoelleJay's assessment table. Meeting NFOOTBALL is insufficient; on top of being subordinate to WP:NSPORTS which explicitly requests reliable sources, per WP:SNG, articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found. Neither adequate sourcing nor significant coverage could be found, hence delete. Pilaz (talk) 18:11, 13 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. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Celestina007 (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shinji Yamada[edit]

Shinji Yamada (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)

Doesn’t appear they have ever played in a significant tournament as recognized by FIFA for Japan, and it doesn’t appear that they have played for any premier division in Germany or elsewhere. I do not see WP:NFOOTY met. Celestina007 (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not see WP:NFOOTY met. Look again. WP:NFOOTY: "Players who have played, and managers who have managed, in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues will generally be regarded as notable." → This season, Yamada has made four appearances in 3. Liga which WP:FPL lists as a fully professional league. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — @Robby.is.on thank you for your explanation, it was an oversight on my part, I clearly forgot to look at WP:FPL. Thank you also @GiantSnowman for your rationale I’m moving to close this. Celestina007 (talk) 21:38, 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. WP:SNOW keep - reviews from more than several magazines that have since been added to the article show that this game passes WP:GNG. Whether they are "specialized" is not relevant for notability purposes as long as they are secondary sources. (non-admin closure) ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Grenade (game)[edit]

Operation Grenade (game) (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)

Only sources listed in the article are published by the same company as the one that made the game, so are not independent. Other reviews are claimed to exist, but nothing is known about their length, independence, reliability, ... Looking for sources beyond the highly specialized magazines gave no usable results[10][11]. Fram (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I have added another, more independent source of information (the French language wargaming magazine Frog of War), as well as a new "other review", Casus Belli, another independent French magazine. The "other reviews" already listed are very likely full-length and in-depth reviews, since that is the purpose of those magazines. I am trying to track down copies, hopefully soon. Guinness323 (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep sources appear to be enough. As a note on the nom's statement, the magazine "Moves" appears to have been owned by TSR, not SPI, when the review was published. Hobit (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Independent citations have been added to the article and several independent reviews seems to exist. RoseCherry64 (talk) 23:28, 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. There does not seem to be a broad agreement on whether WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies, nor on any of the other relevant policies mentioned. 28bytes (talk) 07:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of animals by number of neurons[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of animals by number of neurons (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)

Nominating for similar reasons to those raised in the AfD for List of animals by Number of Bones. This page fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and has no clearly defined scope, along with the fact that there seems to be no idea as to what level of taxa to put here (the animals listed here vary from individual species to entire phyla to individual dog breeds). AryKun (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This article was created on December 5th, 2006‎. It list valid encyclopedic content, so meets the requirements for an information list. How many animals have had their neurons counted? Obviously you can't include every animal that exists on a single list. Not likely anyone would take the time to add that many entries anyway. Determining which animals to list should be done on the talk page, through normal editing methods. Dream Focus 17:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I went to this article thoroughly expecting to choose delete, but realised that it's exactly the sort of thing that would have fascinated and educated me as a child browsing the pages of Arthur Mee or similar encyclopaedic works. It will never be a complete list. It doesn't need to be a complete list (in fact it shouldn't try). Its value is that it gives a quick (and visual), informative overview of the typical brain- and nervous-system sizes you need, if you want to be a rotifer, a bee, a lizard, a bird, a human or an elephant. It places us neatly in the perspective of nature, and shows the range of life. Definitely the sort of thing that an encyclopaedia should be. Elemimele (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as an WP:ATD. Current article topic does not meet WP:NLIST, however merging it to neurons is impractical. I suspect that a similar topic name regarding nervous systems in animals could be found, in order to meet notability requirements.

    This could also tighten the scope of the article, therefore addressing this concern noted in the nomination. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page does not belong as a list, but I do think that an article discussing the significance of the number of neurons or type of nervous system present in an animal would be worthwhile. However, I don't think ATD should be used here, as the article has nearly no information beside the list, and just deleting this and then creating a new page seems like it would be cleaner. AryKun (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it appears that salvaging the content for another article is not feasible. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there's absolutely no case for deleting the list by number of bones and keeping this one. PianoDan (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of clear scope and for being horribly, excessively WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It serves no useful purpose and has no realistic goal. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article in neither WP:INDISCRIMINATE nor does it violate WP:NLIST which has this pertinent attribute ...One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. This simple google search: Comparative brains in animals and google scholar search Comparative brains in animals demonstrates ample sources that the topic of this list has been discussed as a group by WP:RS. Indeed I would hope that this list could be cleaned up from a formatting POV but it is indeed encyclopedic. Mike Cline (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That’s a rationale for an article about comparative animal neurology, which is a far more worthy encyclopedic topic than “here’s a list of whatever random critters we can find a neuron count citation for”. Dronebogus (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete overly broad and devoid of useful context for the significance of this information. These sorts of lists are what people who don’t understand a topic think a topic looks like, but are really just empty trivia that invites all sorts of WP:SYNTH interpretations. (“Oh elephants have more neurons that obviously means they’re the smartest”) Dronebogus (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it seems to me that WP:INDISCRIMINATE is being used in an incredibly over-broad sense and most of the other reasons given seem to be nit-picky at best2601:405:4A80:B950:60BB:D4E8:D7D8:1329 (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC) — 2601:405:4A80:B950:60BB:D4E8:D7D8:1329 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • WP:NOTSTATS is part of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and states that “Excessive listings of unexplained statistics” are not encyclopedic. This counts as “unexplained statistics” because it’s just random numbers of neurons in a pretty table without an in-depth discussion of why and how these numbers are significant. In fact, some of them are only stats on the brain, while others are the whole body! Dronebogus (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because this particular comparison is highly WP:Notable, unlike something random like "comparison of mammals by number of skin cells on their face". (Full disclosure: I would personally keep the referenced "by number of bones" article too, but that one is much more borderline.) Caleb Stanford (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While the article topic itself is actually notable and an article discussing what kind of effect the number of neurons has on an animal, it is highly unsuited to a list article. This list is just a random collection of whatever animals have had their neurons estimated, with no defined scope, zero context or explanation of how the number of neurons affects an animal, and inviting of all kinds of stupid conclusions like lobsters are stupider than ants or Chow Chows are smarter than chihuahuas. With zero content to salvage here, it would be better to delete it as junk. AryKun (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons already given and because I found it useful in my own research. The level-of-taxa objection seems irrelevant: if the available data fit different levels, then that's how it should be reported. Aubrey Bardo (talk) 16:34, 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 merge to Hyderabad State. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2022) 12:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

O Osman[edit]

O Osman (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 find nothing notable about this old anthem of a defunct kingdom/province/state. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more attempt for comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 16:52, 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 per consensus. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 23:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Nevens[edit]

Robert Nevens (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)

Nevens competed in the olympics, but did not win a medal. A few months ago it was decided through an RfC that those who did not win medals in the olympics are not default notable, they need to pass other criteria. The one source here is a low quality, broad inclusion source that cannot be used to show passing of sports notability. It did every search I could think off, google, google news, google books, google scholar, and came up with no outher sources about this person, although I did come up with passing mentions of other people who lived more recently, or much earlier. The Dtuch language Wikipedia article as far as I can tell uses the one same source. There is just no enough sourcing to justify having a biography on this person. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Whilst this is a technical pass of WP:NATH that standard ultimately assumes a WP:GNG pass but once challenged GNG has to be shown and it just doesn't appear to be present here. As JPL says the only source fails WP:SPORTCRIT. No point redirecting this as it is not a plausible search term for any redirect you might want to name - only an average of three visits per month for this page in 2021 most/all of which will have been WebCrawlers/bots/people looking for other Robert Nevens. FOARP (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Delete per nom. The nl:Robert Nevens article contains more information but simply shows that he could break 3 hours for a marathon and gives no sign that he was in any way notable. Nigej (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Even by the standards of the time, this sub-stub was a garbage creation. Unlikely search term, no SIGCOV proven to exist, complete failure of the GNG. Ravenswing 19:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be fair before October 2021 being the olympics was treated as an absolute show of notability that meant an article could stand as long as we had enough sourcing to show the person was really in the olympics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which doesn't mean we were compelled to create such sub-stubs, or prevented from improving them to viable articles. Ravenswing 20:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Athletics at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon, per WP:ATD. His Dutch-lang article suggests some notable achievements, such as several top three marathon finishes too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Having won a marathon in my younger days, I can assure you that his performances are quite mediocre. Unless we're pursuing a policy of having an article for every person in the world, this is the sort of article that needs deleting. Nigej (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Were you also born in 1914? And was your win in a marathon of note? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I may be missing something -- and kindly enlighten me if I am -- but I don't believe that there's any notability guideline where whether an athlete is born in 1914 (or not) is relevant. Ravenswing 03:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. He also competed at the 1938 and 1946 European Championships. I believe there were only 3 international athletics events at the time; the Olympics, the European Championships and the Commonwealth Games. A Belgian not being eligible for the latter, Nevens competed in all international events he was eligible for. His placements were bad though. Geschichte (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That Nevens ran in other races for which we also have articles on Wikipedia, where he performed equally non-notably, indicates that this should not be a redirect to a specific race. FOARP (talk) 08:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From a quick look at Google, this particular Robert Nevens is mentioned in these books: United States Olympic Book, 1936; King Albert's Book; and Report of the American Olympic Committee. I haven't read any of these books, and they do admittedly look like entries in lists of results rather than substantive discussion, but its clear that this guy's name at least shows up in records from the period; local French/Flemish sources from the time may be available. I'm not going to offer a full-voiced 'keep', because I tend to feel that if we have no more than a sentence to say about a subject, then the reader is better served by a redirect to a list of similar subjects than by lots of different articles. However, I don't think we need to be using language like 'garbage' in a discussion of this nature: like it or not, we have thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of articles which are like this or worse. Let's just discuss neutrally whether this is worth retaining or not. Girth Summit (blether) 00:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty comfortable with my characterization of an article that was created with seventeen words in the text, whose only edits from the article creator involved changing "http" to "https" and the name of a template, and remains at seventeen words now, nearly five years later. That thousands of articles exist that are as bad or worse is cold comfort. Ravenswing 00:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that you're comfortable with it, else you wouldn't have written it. Other people might not be so comfortable. I draw your attention to the banner atop your own user talk page. Girth Summit (blether) 00:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's necessarily helpful to describe articles that were technical passes of an SNG that was in place when the article was created as garbage. This is the case even if they have been the subject of dummy edits made right after the edits of another editor apparently to assert ownership of the article (1 2), dummy edits of a type that the editor in question is making still to this day (see, e.g., here).
Turning to the sources raised by Girth Summit:
  • United States Olympic Book, 1936 - lists Nevens in 24th place in the marathon on p. 137.
  • King Albert's Book, A Tribute to the Belgian King and People from Representative Men and Women Throughout the World - I cannot see the mention in here of Nevens. He is not mentioned in the index of contributors, and since this is a collection of poems/paintings/tributes to Belgium and it's King written in 1914, it seems highly unlikely that he is mentioned here.
  • Report of the American Olympic Committee - identical to United States Olympic Book, 1936.
Is it possible that there are more sources out there? Well yes, of course, it is always possible that there might be sources out there that significant coverage to the subject of this article. But we don't have these sources. I did of course search all sources that are reasonably available online before !voting delete. Searches in Flemish are not helped by the fact that "nevens" appears to be the word for "besides" in Dutch (and Flemish?), but what sources I can reasonably access (Google Books, Internet Archive text search) I searched. One thing these searches highlighted are that there have been actually a great number of people called "Robert Nevens", including a prominent American Pharmacist and an officer in the US War of Independence who are at least as (non-) notable as this Nevens. I am therefore highly dubious that it is at all likely that people will be searching the name "Robert Nevens" looking for this specific Nevens, and indeed the existence of this article even as a redirect may discourage the creation of an article about a more notable Robert Nevens. FOARP (talk) 08:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the sourcing, you are quite correct - these are trivial mentions, and it's clear that the 'King Albert's Book' was a false positive (it came up in the Google Books search for "Robert Nevens" + Olympics, but your Internet Archive link makes it clear that neither the words 'Nevens' and 'Olympics' don't actually appears).
On the matter of what is helpful, or relevant, I don't see why the second sentence of your post is either. The existence of minor edits in the history of a page; speculation as to the motivations of the person who performed those edits; the current editing habits exhibited by that person: none of these have any bearing on whether a subject is, or is not, notable. I'm fine with this discussion reaching a consensus to delete, but please keep it focussed on the subject itself. Girth Summit (blether) 10:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of the quality of the page was raised. The edit history of the page, and why particular edits were made, is part of that, if only a minor aspect. FOARP (talk) 10:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They're a non-aspect - they have no bearing on the notability of the subject, or on the overall quality of the article. Occasional gnoming in the editing history, whether constructive or otherwise, simply isn't something we need to consider in a deletion discussion. Girth Summit (blether) 11:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a rather strange rationale to use - hasn't been edited/expanded in X timespan somehow impacts on the notability of a given article. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all; it is strong evidence that the article is unimprovable. For surely, of course, you attempted to do so, right? Ravenswing 18:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Strong evidence" - no, it's irrelevant. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; fails GNG due to lack of SIGCOV and there is no realistic expectation that any exists. There is no valid ATD because there is no suitable article to redirect or merge to, and it's probable that equally notable people of the same name exist. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is an ATD - the Athletics at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon article, as mentioned above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not per XY, when there is evidence that Nevers competed in other notable competitions, with an equal (un)likelihood of a relevant search. Ravenswing 18:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I do not regard that as a suitable ATD because the target is not suitable for several reasons, including: it is a very unlikely search term so the redirect would not be useful; it's not the only race he ran, and it's very unlikely to be the one he'd be most recognised for if he had any kind of career as an athlete; there are other people of the same name; the proposed target contains virtually no information on him (WP:R#DELETE #10); etc. wjematherplease leave a message... 18:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per and as user:Lugnuts. Meets WP:NATH and is deleted just because the Belgian sources are not yet online (although rules are rules, no problem with that). The following Dutch sources testify to the importance of Nevens:
gidonb (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the objection to redirects but it does not make sense. This person meets the professional standard and is now being deleted because the Belgian newspapers are not yet online. I'll think about the targets you asked about. gidonb (talk) 19:28, 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 23:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liechtenstein–Turkey relations[edit]

Liechtenstein–Turkey relations (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)

Fairly inconsequential relationship, largely sourced from Turkey's foreign affairs ministry. Turkey has an honorary consulate in Liechtenstein, and that's about it; trade volume is very low. People of Turkish origin are 3% of Liechtenstein's total population, as Turks in Liechtenstein reminds the reader, but that has not translated into significant coverage at the country level. Couldn't find state visits either. Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of secondary sources and in-depth coverage. Pilaz (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - let's keep in mind that contacts between Liechtenstein and Turkey didn't begin in 1992. "Since 1719, the princes of Liechtenstein had been granted imperial immediacy, which set them above the aristocracy and directly below the emperor. In the absence of the emperor, they were the most important dignitaries of the Austrian monarch until Maria Theresa returned from Hungary. They played a significant role in maintenance of the commitments undertaken by the Ottomans in Belgrade." ([12]), "In 1584-5, he participated in the Habsburg embassy of Heinrich von Liechtenstein to Constantinople, and this aroused his interest in Ottoman history..." ([13]), "Prince Liechtenstein also complained that the French ambassador, Count Rebenac, had tried to encourage both Poland and Venice to quit the league, or at least to not wage an offensive war against the Ottoman Empire." ([14]) --Soman (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most relations occur between Turkey-EFTA rather than bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also, not much in the way of the reliable sources for this. Yilloslime (talk) 04:22, 12 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 23:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2016 FIA R-GT Cup[edit]

2016 FIA R-GT Cup (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)

Funnily enough a WP:BEFORE search doesn't return anything regarding this "five-round competition" which only had one entrant in one of the rounds. WP:NOTDATABASE applies. If sourcing can be found explaining the lack of entries then it should probably be mentioned in the main Group R-GT article. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's no content to merge, but we can add a note to the table in the Group R-GT article though. I would prefer no redirect given the "championship" (any season) doesn't really exist in real life (try and find something on Google that isn't an announcement). Ourtight deletion seems like the most suitable action in this case. 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:07, 12 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 14:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Escuela Parroquial Santa Rita[edit]

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

The article is written like an advert and from what I can tell it has been un-referenced since it's creation in 2006. Except for the one link, which isn't even being used properly and is from a blog anyway. Outside of that all I could find was a couple of trivial name drops school directories. Nothing that was in-depth or would pass the notability guidelines though. Adamant1 (talk) 14:46, 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trevon Grimes[edit]

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

Not notable American football player....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:36, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kisongo Academic College[edit]

Kisongo Academic 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)

The article has only been referenced to the schools website since at least 2016. In the meantime secondary schools aren't inherently notable and all I could find in a WP:BEFORE was an "article" about the school by thecitizen.co.tz that reads like a glorified PR piece and doesn't really discuss the school in that much detail anyway. Outside of that there's just some name trivial name drops in a few articles about other things. From what I can tell there's nothing that would work for notability though. Maybe the thecitizen.co.tz article would work, but it's to non-neutral IMO and wouldn't be enough on it's own anyway, even if it wasn't full of obviously slanted promotional material. Adamant1 (talk) 14:27, 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 14:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of prime ministers of New Zealand by date of birth[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of prime ministers of New Zealand by date of birth (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)

Renominating this one separately. Completely unsourced WP:LISTCRUFT, not a notable aspect of the group of people (date of birth is important for individuals, and the prime ministers are notable as a group; but date of birth is not important as a group). Subsections like "born on the same date" are quite indicative of the "encyclopedic" level of this. Perhaps add a "PMs with the same starsign" grouping as well? The monarch, GG, or PM at the time of birth are not even important enough to be mentioned in someone's individual biography, but they are important enough to be subsections in this list? The year of birth is included in List of prime ministers of New Zealand, people are free to male all calculations, lists, ... from this information: that doesn't mean that it belongs in an encyclopedia of course. Fram (talk) 14:14, 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 speedy delete as G11 by Anthony Bradbury. (non-admin closure) Mvqr (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall Fontenot[edit]

Kendall Fontenot (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, I tagged for G11 but it was removed by a different account. Does not pass GNG, coverage of Fontenot is mainly limited to paid promotional advertising, promoted content marked as promoted, on websites and news sites. Mvqr (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-instated the G11 tag as it was in fact removed by the article's creator through a different account, now blocked for sock-puppetry.--Mvqr (talk) 16:44, 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 13:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of high schools in Alto Paraná, Paraguay[edit]

List of high schools in Alto Paraná, Paraguay (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)

None of these schools are blue linked and I couldn't find any articles to add to it. So the article doesn't serve as a navigational aid. There's also zero evidence that the schools are notable as a group or set. Since I couldn't find any independent, reliable sources discussing them as such. So as a list this clearly fails WP:LISTN. In the meantime, if anyone finds references about the individual schools there's no reason they can't just be mentioned in the Alto Paraguay Department article since it doesn't have a section on schools that are located there and can use the content instead of needlessly keeping a separate list article. Adamant1 (talk) 13:31, 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 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 13:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fundación Colegio Bilingüe de Valledupar[edit]

Fundación Colegio Bilingüe de Valledupar (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 the references in the article are dead links, not about the school, or otherwise un-usable for notability. I couldn't find anything in a WP:BEFORE that would work either. Just the usual WP:MILL social media links and name drops in news articles about other things that most schools get. From what I can tell none of it is the direct, in-depth, coverage required by the notability guidelines. Adamant1 (talk) 13:17, 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 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 13:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colegio Altamira International School[edit]

Colegio Altamira International 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)

From what I can tell the article has been un-referenced since it's creation in 2009, I couldn't find anything about in a WP:BEFORE that would help for notability or otherwise, and schools of this type are not inherently notable. So this should be deleted based on failing both WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Maybe someone can find references I missed though. Adamant1 (talk) 13:05, 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. Much like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Game Boy colors and styles, the keep arguments did not adequately address WP:NOTCATALOGUE. ✗plicit 13:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nintendo DS colors and styles[edit]

List of Nintendo DS colors and styles (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)

Extremely trivial, mundane, and anal-retentive gamecruft and listcruft. Dronebogus (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow, looks like I predicted this article's deletion almost exactly 6 years ago! Sergecross73 msg me 00:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I'd disagree with it being "anal" (it's potentially useful information for video game collectors), it's not really something fitting for a general encyclopedia and would be better off in a specialized Wiki or site instead.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Nintendo DS family - has references. Different makes/models/colours are generally discussed in independent sources (which have been supplied here) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per NOTCATALOG. DocFreeman24 (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with the parent article (which provides the ‘contextual information’). The existence of this list would likely not survive in isolation; in cases such as this it does help to keep many details out of the parent article, thus making that article more manageable. (Since the main namespace doesn’t allow subpages, we end up with these strange results.) Jim Grisham (talk) 17:07, 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. ✗plicit 13:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nintendo 3DS colors and styles[edit]

List of Nintendo 3DS colors and styles (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)

Extremely trivial, mundane, and anal-retentive gamecruft and listcruft. Dronebogus (talk) 13:02, 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 13:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wasel Choi[edit]

Wasel Choi (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. A plain Google Search for "Wasel Choi" reveals next to nothing. All the references are dead links except one [15] which is about "Wasel Safwan". The redirect Wasel Safwan targets this article but there is no explanation why. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even his own website doesn't work anymore. The last time it worked appears to have been around 8 years ago. The article does rather resemble his own biography, see https://web.archive.org/web/20131022223046/http://waselart.com/biography I can't find anything about a Wasel Choi, but I did find one mention of Wasel Safwan here, but that's only a mention of his name in a group show without any further information. Vexations (talk) 15:14, 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 redirect to RELX. ✗plicit 12:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reed Exhibitions[edit]

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

This is a procedural nomination. User:WeldingF originally created this post back in November but didn't follow procedures to properly open the discussion. Didn't think it was appropriate to do a WP:NACAFD so thought I would do this instead. The original rationale was "Company not notable enough, as it only contains notable assets." Jay eyem (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a colleague just mentioned this discussion to me, so I'm adding my thoughts here. I'm an employee of RELX, so can't get involved directly due to potential WP:COI but RX is more than just 'a particular operating unit' of RELX - it is one of the world's largest events businesses so it definitely feels like it merits its own page. Can you suggest what might be done to help develop this page in order to remove the notability warning? Many thanks Ryoba (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:37, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 14:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trappe East[edit]

Trappe East (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)

Planned housing development is opposed by local NIMBYs and gets local press coverage for it. That happens every day all over the world, and is a matter for local media, not an encyclopedia. WP:MILL, WP:NOTNEWS. We generally require more than local press coverage for inclusion, yet here all sources are local (even the WaPo article is from the local section). The mention at Talbot County, Maryland#Environment is more than sufficient. Sandstein 07:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are many examples of large planned housing communities that have dedicated wikipedia pages - see I'On, Gibson Island, Lakeshore East, etc. regarding developments that have immense local importance but which do not necessarily achieve national or international notoriety. Additionally, regional news sources can be reliable and valuable, nor are national media references always reliable and valuable by nature of being national. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dashingcavalier (talk • contribs) 02:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:36, 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 23:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Factual television[edit]

Factual television (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:NEO. Term is not supported by the sources; seems to be a random TV buzzword made up by an individual source Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is not a buzzword but a description used for the genre of television which sits between Observational documentaries and reality television series. It is a description which is used in Australia and Britain to describe this type of programming. The awards presented in those countries and others are specifically separate these type of shows from documentary and Realty awards. Maybe the article needs to be expanded rather than deleted. J Bar (talk) 11:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J Bar. Some examples of significant coverage (not to mention all the other times this term gets used in TV circles):
As a US editor myself, like you, I most certainly understand why this can seem buzzy because it sounds like something that only exists in the trades. However, when references to it in The Guardian start picking up at the end of the 80s, that's a sign that this is an enduring term that meets the GNG. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As this is the English language Wikipedia, not just the American Wikipedia, and is commonly used to differentiate true factual content from 'stuck on an island' dating shows and no-effort viral video filler. Nate • (chatter) 19:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The BAFTAS have an entire category for this type of programming making the perception of this as a "random buzzword" factually incorrect. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:14, 12 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. Liz Read! Talk! 14:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nightwatch Nation[edit]

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

Per the GNG, the subject of this article has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, and so it cannot be presumed as notable. The subject has not been widely covered outside Wikipedia, nor has this show attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time.

Now, I am going to refer to WP:NTV which is an essay, not a guideline, but is still useful and rather persuasive in my opinion. This TV program does not appear to have aired on multiple networks. Per WP:NTVNATL, the absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program audience. So, merely that this show aired in the U.S., even if nationally, does not make it notable.

My conclusion is that a one sentence article with no significant coverage is not of encyclopaedic value and does not belong on Wikipedia. Such-change47 (talk) 09:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shellwood: I get that Googling comes up with some results, however I cannot see anything significant outside of TV guides? Cheers Such-change47 (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:22, 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 12:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Youssouf Diallo (Ivorian footballer)[edit]

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

Fails GNG and the spirit of NFOOTBALL, his professional play being limited to 1 game. Career was over in 2010. The article "Youssouf Diallo, le diamant brut" is nowhere near enough for GNG, Wikipedia is not a repository of every person who has ever been interviewed by a newspaper. Geschichte (talk) 09:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Someone can't pass GNG via other guidelines, only through sources. Geschichte (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG and as such doesn't warrant a standalone article. Per above arguments, consensus at WP:WINNEROUTCOMES (bullet point 4) exists such that players who fall under this criteria are routinely deemed not-notable and thus deleted. GauchoDude (talk) 13:52, 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 keep. 28bytes (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yat Siu[edit]

Yat Siu (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)

Some people like this article, some don't, and there's been some back-and-forth about that in other venues. Here's the place to discuss whether the article should be kept, deleted, converted to a redirect to Animoca Brands, merged into that article, or what. Herostratus (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neuetral as nominator. I don't know what's going on here, just that some editors feel strongly about the article and have been arguing about it at other places, whereas the better place is here. Deletions should not be done via blankings-to-redirect and insisting. Herostratus (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had not restored the article myself as I did not want to edit war The page history, [17] and [18], suggests otherwise. --John B123 (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

    Why I oppose a redirect to Animoca Brands

    I oppose a redirect to Animoca Brands because Yat Siu has received significant coverage in reliable sources for his founding of Outblaze in 1998 and Animoca Brands in 2014. He also received coverage for his founding of Cybercity and his founding of Dalton Learning Lab. Yat Siu has received significant coverage in multiple publications over a period of 22 years between 1999 and 2021. There is more than enough information to justify a standalone article about him. A redirect to Animoca Brands does not make sense when he is covered for his numerous activities. I removed promotional material when I restored the article, which now has a neutral tone.

    Sources

    1. Selection of three sources:
      1. Cohan, Peter (2013-01-19). "WPI dropout finds success in Hong Kong". Telegram & Gazette. Archived from the original on 2022-01-05. Retrieved 2022-01-05.
      2. Feng, Cathy Hilborn (1999-10-14). "Free net for all". Far Eastern Economic Review. Vol. 162, no. 41. p. 61. ProQuest 208226626.
      3. Ong, Carolyn (1999-10-15). "Young, eager to succeed, they're from outside HK; Time overseas marks out young Web entrepreneurs". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2022-01-05. Retrieved 2022-01-05.
    2. Additional sources:
      1. Ye, Josh (2021-06-12). "Animoca Brands: How a big bet on blockchain and NFTs minted Hong Kong's latest unicorn". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2021-12-05. Retrieved 2021-12-05.
      2. Whyte, Jemima (2021-11-26). "If you haven't heard of this $2.2b crypto co-founder you soon will". Australian Financial Review. Archived from the original on 2021-12-30. Retrieved 2021-12-30.
      3. "Yat Siu". Tatler. 2021. Archived from the original on 2022-01-05. Retrieved 2022-01-05.
      4. Davis, Chris (2012-10-06). "Cyber success - Passion, ambition, drive and luck helped propel Hong Kong technology pioneer Yat Siu to the top, writes Chris Davis". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2022-01-05. Retrieved 2022-01-05.
      5. Knott, Kylie (2017-10-10). "Hong Kong tech guru's after-school lab to help children prepare for a robotic future. Yat Siu fears Hong Kong's traditional school system is failing to equip students for a world dominated by technology". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2022-01-05. Retrieved 2022-01-05.
      6. Tay, Daniel (2015-05-06). "Outblaze's CEO: here's what it takes to become a builder of meaningful products". Tech in Asia. Archived from the original on 2022-01-05. Retrieved 2022-01-05.
      7. Mertens, Brian (July 2000). "Asia's boomerangs". Asian Business. Vol. 36, no. 7. Times Publishing Corp (HK) Ltd. ProQuest 199832036.
      8. Scott, Jason (2001-05-27). "Time tight for Outblaze chief; Despite a couple of false starts, hard work has quickly established wunderkind as a local Internet heavyweight". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2022-01-05. Retrieved 2022-01-05.
      9. Einhorn, Bruce (2002-08-19). "How Outblaze Outlasted the Bubble". Business Week Online. EBSCOhost 7232255.
      10. Kolle, Klaudine (January 2001). "Blazing ahead". Asian Business. Vol. 37, no. 1. Times Publishing Corp (HK) Ltd. ProQuest 199839074.
    Sources with quotes
    1. Selection of three sources:
      1. Cohan, Peter (2013-01-19). "WPI dropout finds success in Hong Kong". Telegram & Gazette. Archived from the original on 2022-01-05. Retrieved 2022-01-05.

        The article notes: "Yat Siu is an only child, born in Vienna. And his journey from there to Hong Kong helps explain the success of his company, Outblaze. ... In high school, Mr. Siu wrote software for Atari ST computers. This attracted the attention of Atari, which hired Mr. Siu after he graduated from high school and brought him to the U.S. to work on multimedia software. At the same time, Mr. Siu attended Worcester Polytechnic Institute to study computer science, but after a visit to Boston he found that city more fun and more stimulating. He soon transferred to Boston University."

      2. Feng, Cathy Hilborn (1999-10-14). "Free net for all". Far Eastern Economic Review. Vol. 162, no. 41. p. 61. ProQuest 208226626.

        The article notes: "The son of Chinese musicians, Siu grew up in Austria and himself became a classically trained musician. At age 16, he went from composing music on computers to working for Atari's multimedia team. Soon after, while studying computer science in Boston, he co-founded a software company that Silicon Graphics purchased for an undisclosed amount in 1994."

      3. Ong, Carolyn (1999-10-15). "Young, eager to succeed, they're from outside HK; Time overseas marks out young Web entrepreneurs". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2022-01-05. Retrieved 2022-01-05.

        The article notes: "Mr Yat's story is also remarkable. Mr Yat studied music theory and the flute at the Austrian Musical Conservatory and had nothing to do with technology until his first job at the age of 16, at Atari, which marked his first foray into software development. Fast forward to 1994, Mr Yat has formed Lexicor, a software company that builds 3D graphics. Silicon Graphics bought Lexicor and Mr Yat came to Hong Kong. The entrepreneurial itch was bugging him yet again and he started Hong Kong Cyber City, a Web community along the lines of Geocities."

    2. Additional sources:
      1. Ye, Josh (2021-06-12). "Animoca Brands: How a big bet on blockchain and NFTs minted Hong Kong's latest unicorn". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2021-12-05. Retrieved 2021-12-05.

        The article notes: "Born and raised in Vienna to a musical family from Hong Kong and Taiwan, Siu was a programming whiz who got his first job at the iconic gaming company Atari in Austria when he was still a teenager at school. Siu moved to Hong Kong in the 1990s from Boston, where he was attending university, and ended up creating one of Hong Kong’s most successful tech companies – Outblaze – which at one point claimed to power 30 to 40 per cent of US email traffic, providing the end-user services and back end infrastructure that allowed companies to offer their own branded communication services. After selling Outblaze’s messaging business unit to IBM in 2009, Siu went back into gaming and founded Animoca, which became a leading global mobile game developer."

      2. Whyte, Jemima (2021-11-26). "If you haven't heard of this $2.2b crypto co-founder you soon will". Australian Financial Review. Archived from the original on 2021-12-30. Retrieved 2021-12-30.

        The article notes: "If you haven’t yet heard of Yat Siu, you probably soon will. As co-founder and executive chairman of Animoca Brands, the 48-year-old Viennese-raised and now Hong Kong-based entrepreneur is right at the heart of the fast-paced world of online gaming, blockchain, crypto-currencies and non-fungible tokens."

      3. "Yat Siu". Tatler. 2021. Archived from the original on 2022-01-05. Retrieved 2022-01-05.

        The article notes: "Born in Austria, he started his career at Atari Germany before moving to Hong Kong in 1996, where he set up the innovative free website and email company Cybercity. He then set up Outblaze during the first dotcom explosion, initially as a messaging company known for its robust anti-spam protection (at its peak, it had more than 75 million customers), but he gradually transitioned it into a games company, selling its messaging business to IBM in 2009."

      4. Davis, Chris (2012-10-06). "Cyber success - Passion, ambition, drive and luck helped propel Hong Kong technology pioneer Yat Siu to the top, writes Chris Davis". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2022-01-05. Retrieved 2022-01-05.

        The article notes: "Armed with a degree in music from the Conservatory of Music in Vienna, Siu began his career in technology working for Atari Germany. He later joined graphics software company Lexicor in Boston, serving as director and head of US east coast operations. He moved to Hong Kong in 1996, setting up Hong Kong Cybercity, later renamed Freenation, Asia's first free web page and e-mail provider."

      5. Knott, Kylie (2017-10-10). "Hong Kong tech guru's after-school lab to help children prepare for a robotic future. Yat Siu fears Hong Kong's traditional school system is failing to equip students for a world dominated by technology". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2022-01-05. Retrieved 2022-01-05.

        The article notes: "But technology entrepreneur and father of three Yat Siu found himself worrying that the Hong Kong school system, which focuses on book learning and standardised testing, was not providing the skills necessary for the economy of tomorrow. ... So Siu did something about it. He co-founded Dalton Learning Lab, Hong Kong’s first after-school facility dedicated to preparing students aged four to 13 for a world dominated by technology."

      6. Tay, Daniel (2015-05-06). "Outblaze's CEO: here's what it takes to become a builder of meaningful products". Tech in Asia. Archived from the original on 2022-01-05. Retrieved 2022-01-05.

        The article discusses Yat Siu's appearance at Tech in Asia Singapore 2015. The article notes: "Yat Siu first become a serial entrepreneur, or a builder of meaningful things, back in 1998. Outblaze was founded then, and somehow rose out of the ashes of the dot-com bubble and subsequent crash. Because he was unable to secure venture capital, Yat Siu was forced to build his platform on Linux, which gave him an advantage in terms of cost when the crisis hit."

      7. Mertens, Brian (July 2000). "Asia's boomerangs". Asian Business. Vol. 36, no. 7. Times Publishing Corp (HK) Ltd. ProQuest 199832036.

        The article notes: "Take "superboy" Yat Siu, CEO of Hong Kong-based portal services and solutions business, Outblaze. It may have taken a couple of generations, but the 27-year-old entrepreneur finally returned to his roots. Austrian-born, US-educated Siu's great-grandfather fled Shanghai, for Hong Kong when the Chinese Communists came to power in 1949. He later left for Taiwan. Fifty years on, Siu has returned to the same part of the world, Hong Kong. ..."

      8. Scott, Jason (2001-05-27). "Time tight for Outblaze chief; Despite a couple of false starts, hard work has quickly established wunderkind as a local Internet heavyweight". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2022-01-05. Retrieved 2022-01-05.

        The article notes: "Born in Vienna, his Taiwanese mother was an orchestra conductor, while his Hong Kong-born father was an instrumentalist who later became a businessman. Mr Siu followed his parents into music (specialising in piano, flute and cello) but implies he was pushed."

      9. Einhorn, Bruce (2002-08-19). "How Outblaze Outlasted the Bubble". Business Week Online. EBSCOhost 7232255.

        The article notes: "A classically trained musician who studied at a Vienna conservatory before switching to computer software, Siu even became a poster boy for Citibank, which plastered giant pictures of him around town as part of an ad campaign designed to capitalize on his membership in Hong Kong's hip cyber elite."

      10. Kolle, Klaudine (January 2001). "Blazing ahead". Asian Business. Vol. 37, no. 1. Times Publishing Corp (HK) Ltd. ProQuest 199839074.

        The article profiles Yat Siu. The article notes: "After being burnt in his first foray into the tech world, young gun Yat Siu didn't let his passion die -- instead he ignited one of Asia's hottest web service providers."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Yat Siu to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing the massive slab of text with quotes thing again. For a while, you were at least collapsing the quotes. 2-3 screens of text just comes across as an attempt at filibustering - David Gerard (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not filibustering to make cogent, detailed arguments supported by examples, excerpts, and considered analysis. If you're not up to reading and considering editors' arguments and argue your points on the merits, fine, but then how is contributing here helpful to what we're trying to do? And it's not a "thing again" for this venue. We're starting fresh here with some new eyes. Can we please stick mostly to the merits of the case. Herostratus (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought WP:THREE was applicable here? --John B123 (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I provided WP:THREE in the "Selection of three sources" list to establish that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I included 10 additional sources to address Wikipedia:Notability#Whether to create standalone pages by definitively establishing that the subject is notable independent of Animoca Brands so should have a standalone article.

I don't like to collapse the sources with quotes as that makes the quotes less visible. The quotes explain why I think the subject is notable. Although I generally don't collapse sources with quotes anymore as I agree with Herostratus (talk · contribs) that this is not filibustering, I have done this now so that editors can comment on the quality of the sources instead of the length of the post. Cunard (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question, is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest in play here? I haven't seen that claim, but ask because people seem to be feeling really quite strongly that the article is not legit. If it's a possibility, should not a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard thread be opened? This could have a strong influence on how we dispose of the article. Herostratus (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As there have been no claims of COI, and as far as I can see you're not making one, this seems like mudslinging to me. I don't follow the logic. Two editors are trying desperately hard to save the article, three have reverted the changes, but the three who have made the reverts have had their integrity questioned. All that a side, as the article has already been discussed in multiple places, starting another discussion would come across as WP:FORUMSHOPPING. --John B123 (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, fair point, but I'm just trying to figure out what the deal is here, and it looks kind of sus. Looking at the page history I get:
        • Page created November 2018, basically sailing along until December of last year, when
        • 2021, December 1, User:IceWelder blanked the page (not a huge fan of people doing this, but legal) and left a redirect.
        • December 3, restored by an anon. Special-purpose anon.
        • December 3, IceWelder doubled down and blanked the page again. Proper procedure per WP:BRD is to not do that but rather go to the talk page and seek consensus, so this is edit warring.
        • December 3, restored again by same anon (User:218.250.109.65). It's arguable that this is edit warring and proper procedure would be to go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. But they didn't.
        • December 3, IceWelder tripled down and blanked again. Now we have a real edit war.
        • December 4, same anon restored again.
        • December 12, User:David Gerard (an admin) steps in and blanks the page again (edit summary was "Rv promotional IP", which is why I asked about conflict of interest).
        • December 20, a different anon restored the page again. Her eighth edit and last so far. Started in 2020, so could be sleeper?
        • December 20, David Gerard blanked the page again
        • December 23, another new anon (the third now) restored the page. Also her eighth edit and last so far. Started in 2017... sleeper?
        • December 23, David Gerard blanked the page
        • Christmas Day, another new anon (the fourth) restored the page again. Her first and only edit.
        • December 28, User:John B123 steps and blanks the page
        • December 30, User:Cunard steps and restores the page
        • 2022 January 2, David Gerard blanks the page
        • January 2, restored by Cunard
        • January 2, blanked by David Gerard
        • January 2, User:Herostratus (that is me) restored the page, sent it to AfD, and asked that the page remain as is so that AfD can properly discuss it, which request has been honored.
      • That's where we are. This is like a really long edit war, and the whole thing is odd and possibly everyone involved (except me!) should take a cooldown block or something. But I mean User:IceWelder definitely started it. Generally, the people who want the page to not exist or be blank are the main culprits here (and I'm afraid that you, User:John B123, are in with them, FWIW. The anons and Cunard where just wanting to get them to honor WP:BRD, basically. The admins at the Edit Warring board would not have been kindly I don't think.
The fact that various single-purpose IPs were stepping in... is that suspicious? Sounds sound extremely suspicious to me. Maybe David Gerard figured it was a phalanx of COI trolls, and that's why he did what he did. Edit warring doesn't seem the best to handle that tho. Perhaps this AfD, where it's legit and important if Chinese trolls are supporting this article. Nobody's really said that, that I've seen, tho. Or maybe to the COI board, then here when that's concluded?
Oh and Cunard took this to two different board -- WP:DRV where there was a long and well-attended discussion (lot of people saying go to AfD, some not), and another board, I forget which. Quite a dog's breakfast. Whole thing is odd. Now on to the merits, I guess, unless the plethora of anons or whatever want someone to claim trollery, which would matter, but nobody has really said that yet. Herostratus (talk) 04:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing this detailed timeline and analysis, Herostratus (talk · contribs). I restored Yat Siu as an article after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animoca Brands was closed as "keep" and after I noticed this edit to Animoca Brands that removed a link to founder Yat Siu as a "circular redirect". Cunard (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GNG appears met, editing to make sure it's not hagiographic or promotional need not rise to the level of pure redirection. Jclemens (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly adequate sourcing, the slant of the article is not TNT-worthy. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cunard analysis of media coverage. I got a lot pleasure while reading the AfD disscussin here. "Keep" position is well-grounded here. The sole problem is the crypto theme of the page. Peopole generalyy don't like anything conncected with cryptocurrencies. However, I would like to accent the impact Yat Siu made on cryptoworld, that is evident and easily verifiable. That makes him notable for Wikipedia, not vice versa. --ArcticSnowWind (talk) 09:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepagree per above. VocalIndia (talk) 03:38, 13 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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Teachers Institute[edit]

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

Fails GNG and was deleted earlier too Pridemanty (talk) 08:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep : One of the oldest Federal government of Nigeria institutions that has been the subject of multiple independent reliable sources including journals, books, news etc. Just to mention a few of these sources, see this journal, this journal, this book, this paper. Offi gems (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep  – lots of sources exist - [19] [20][21] [22] [23].
    Princess of Ara 05:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as it passes GNG. Speedy keep is not available since there are delete !votes. Draftify would be an option, as the article is poorly done as it stands. Onel5969 TT me 16:18, 12 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 20:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Burton upon Trent Model Engineering Society[edit]

Burton upon Trent Model Engineering Society (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 a WP:BEFORE search. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 22:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I have been unable to find any coverage of either the model engineering society or the miniature railway in Burton upon Trent, in reliable, independent secondary sources. SailingInABathTub (talk) 23:46, 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 merge to CSX Transportation. (CSX redirects there). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CSX milepost prefixes[edit]

CSX milepost prefixes (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 incredibly niche topic is not at all notable, and nothing but unencyclopedic trivia. I have not found any reliable sources providing significant coverage of the topic. It's no wonder the only reference is to a forum (and therefore useless). When you remove Wikipedia mirrors, there's basically zero online about the topic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while I like railfanning, wikipedia is not for unfettered railfanning and this information is not encyclopedic and has no WP:RS. snood1205 23:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG as it has no significant coverage.Lectrician2 (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the first section (with or without the list) to an article about CSX lines if it can be reliably sourced, delete if it can't. The rest is much too niche for a general purpose encyclopaedia so there is no point even looking for sources. Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into CSX. The entire article isn't needed, but the general concept and the link at the top can probably be fit into CSX somewhere. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into CSX per post above. Would make a good section in main CSX article, but not stand-alone. Realkyhick (talk) 04:49, 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. Sandstein 20:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Action of 13 December 1814[edit]

Action of 13 December 1814 (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)

1. Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable. This is a skirmish within an engagement. Neither primary nor secondary sources consider this material enough to be a battle in its own right. 2. This is a nationalistic POV, written by an indefinitely suspended user with a history of adding essays to wikipedia. 3. It lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG. The afternoon firefight between a schooner and seven rowboats on 13 September 2014 is not described as a battle in its own right by reliable sources. 4. Given that this "battle" is not documented elsewhere, it is a new battle as theorised by the creator's original research. This battle honor is not recognized as such by the United States Navy. 5. Reading reputable sources on the conflict have demonstrated that the content is inaccurate, and that the events of 13 December 1814 take up less than a paragraph within the several pages covering the Battle of Lake Borgne Keith H99 (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Existing commentary on this essay created in 2009 posted here:

Talk:Action_of_13_December_1814#Request_for_deletion_in_December_2021
Comments added prior to creating this AfD. Keith H99 (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC) Reformatted wiki link Keith H99 (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this was a bona fide victory, then it would be documented as such. Nothing matches back to source material. He has created a fake battle, and given it a fake title. He's also created a wikipedia page about a fake military unit that is not documented anywhere. The skirmish that occurred is documented in one paragraph within the Battle of Lake Borgne article. The article contains his opinions and theories. His original research from 2009 -or as I think it should be referred to: fiction - has never been mirrored or sanctioned by the likes of the US Naval History and Heritage Command, because most of the content is not validated as truthful when tied back to source material. Why would a bona fide American victory have a British style of date?
I've been telling a friend about how this nonsense has been online for twelve years, totally unsourced, made up in large chunks is a great example of the bad press that wikipedia gets. It is unsourced, poorly written, and flag-waving nonsense from someone whose volatility saw him banned from wikipedia. It is preposterous that because the Action of 14 December at Lake Borgne was a British success (for which a battle clasp was issued in 1847), that some nationalistic MAGA moron decides to counterbalance it with a bogus battle set on the prior day that he thinks has to be invented to counteract it. By his own acknowledgement, he did not provide sources, he just wrote what matched his agenda.
The first contact was with three of Lockyer's launches and the schooner Sea Horse on December 13 at 3:45pm. At 2:00pm she had been sent to remove, or failing that to destroy, a stores dump at Bay St. Louis in order to prevent its capture by British forces. The schooner, with the protection of two land-based 6 pounder cannon,[12] saw off three approaching launches with grapeshot, who initially retired out of range. Sea Horse faced a subsequent rowboat attack with four more launches as reinforcements. This renewed attack was 'repulsed after sustaining for nearly half an hour a very destructive fire.'[3] In the face of superior numbers, the Sea Horse was scuttled and the store was set alight, an explosion occurring at 7:30pm with a large fire being visible thereafter.[12]
[3](Roosevelt 1900, p. 77.)
[12](Letter from Jones to Patterson dated 12 March 1815, within Brannan (ed). pp.487-490)
In essence, the exchange of fire between the schooner and several rowboats is summarized above, documented as a skirmish within the Lake Borgne engagement. It never was a battle, and what he reports is not reflected in source material for the most part.Keith H99 (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary source of Roosevelt and the primary source of Jones's letter to Patterson are in the public domain. Please do access them, and see how what they recount is not reflected by the fiction that was created in 2009. Keith H99 (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is scary. By using a prefix of "Action of " and recording dates in a British English format, he seems to have invented a number of battles, including a US Navy battle honor of the "Action of 1 April 2010" with no sources whatsoever. Keith H99 (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a remarkable production, overall. I'm a bit compromised with grandkids afoot these days, but wanting to help as I can. The truth will always out, and just may need a hand. Lindenfall (talk) 20:25, 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 no consensus. Lack of participation after multiple relists. RL0919 (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Marku[edit]

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

No significant coverage and citations. Nothing notable has been added since its creation in 2013. Fails WP:MUSICBIO Iaof2017 (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2013-10 move to → Mark Marku (politician)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:54, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elf Life[edit]

Elf Life (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)

Defunct webcomic. Each source is primary. Web Cartoonist's Choice Award nomination is not sufficient for notability if no other coverage exists Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:38, 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. Sandstein 20:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Kahn[edit]

Jennifer Kahn (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 to meet WP:GNG. I cannot find significant coverage. Thousands of people have given TED talks. The cited sources are all primary. SVTCobra 03:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "William & Mary - Jennifer Kahn". William & Mary. Retrieved 5 January 2022.
  2. ^ "Jennifer Kahn". people.miami.edu.
  • Delete — I am unable to see reliable sources that substantiate she has been nominated for the named award. I do not see WP:SIGCOV met or how any criterion from WP:NJOURNALIST/WP:CREATIVE is met either. Celestina007 (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Celestina007 said, I don't see sufficient sources to show notability -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed !vote since DaffodilOcean has added some additional sources, including some reviews. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree for the same reasons already outlined. MaskedSinger (talk) 20:20, 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 delete. ✗plicit 02:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Game Boy colors and styles[edit]

List of Game Boy colors and styles (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:NOTCATALOG and mostly unreferenced. Can't access the first ref and the second is a forum thread. Neo-corelight (Talk) 02:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE and WP:GAMECRUFT. It's not an encyclopedia's job to document how many identical functioning Game Boys in different color schemes came out in a given year. Sergecross73 msg me 02:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there’s no precedent for this kind of incredibly mundane hyper-anal gamecruft existing, since the closest things I found were two very similar articles about other Nintendo handhelds (which I’ve also nominated for deletion, natch). Dronebogus (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on top of what was mentioned we also have a precedence at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nintendo Wii colors and styles.--65.93.195.118 (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per NOTCATALOG. DocFreeman24 (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is simply a list without contextual information showing encyclopaedic merit and hence per WP:NOTCATALOGUE is not appropriate for inclusion. Such-change47 (talk) 12:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with the parent article (which provides the ‘contextual information’). The existence of this list would likely not survive in isolation; in cases such as this it does help to keep many details out of the parent article, thus making that article more manageable. (Since the main namespace doesn’t allow subpages, we end up with these strange results.) Jim Grisham (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if the list is merged into the parent article it still violates WP:NOTCATALOG. We're not the place to lists every minor thing in existence. Neo-corelight (Talk) 23:55, 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 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 02:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

89Football[edit]

89Football (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 sources are cheap and poor press releases or irrelevant (WP:CITEBOMB). Its website[24] looks like a scam instead of something serious -- machine-translated sentences, mixed uses of half-width & full-width punctuations and upper/lower cases in tab titles. Created by a sockpuppet of a long-term covert advertising group m:Steward_requests/Checkuser#Stella_Phang.40zh.wikipedia. 虹易 (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has participated in the discussion yet, the article is created by a sockpuppet of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/123Aristotle (m:Steward_requests/Checkuser#Stella_Phang.40zh.wikipedia) and the subject of the article appears to be just a scam, I am requesting a G5 instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 虹易 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 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 keep. ✗plicit 02:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Max Harwood[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Max Harwood (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 actor. Fails WP:NFILM 1друг (talk) 15:47, 21 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) 18:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I have researched the actor. I believe it is simply WP:TOOSOON and that this should be granted a soft delete without prejudice to re-creation. At present he does not pass WP:NACTOR, but he is at the start of a potentially promising career FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 15:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Wouldn't this pass WP:ANYBIO on account of receiving awards/nominations? Also turning it into a redirect page would be a better option than full deletion if necessary in my opinion. – Starklinson 03:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are loads of reliable sources already in the article, including multiple in-depth biographies. He doesn't have to meet the SNG if GNG is satisfied. Mlb96 (talk) 05:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has several valid references, in addition, the actor received some awards. He passes WP:ANYBIO. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: How is this nominated? Sources in the New York Times, Independent, and Variety. Passes notability standards easily due to this significant coverage. Such-change47 (talk) 12:06, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_January_5&oldid=1065941891"