Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 14 May 16 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Jamieson[edit]

Lee Jamieson (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 to pass WP:GNG, so the only option I see is WP:NAUTHOR. No luck - neither book is even in my institutional library, let alone any full academic reviews of either; some citations on google scholar but I didn't see anything substantial. WP:PROF also looks like a no. asilvering (talk) 23:58, 15 May 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 03:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kotei Blankson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and has never played at WP:FPL level. Google News has only squad list mentions. DDG has some Wikipedia mirrors, database profile pages and the occasional trivial match report mention. Both hits in ProQuest are purely trivial mentions of Blankson. I found this Modern Ghana article via Google Images but it's a disappointingly basic transfer announcement, which merely lists his previous clubs and his youth national team history but fails to provide any real depth. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already been PROD'd before.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Article about non-notable footballer which fails WP:GNG. I can only find trivial coverage such as match reports, press releases from his employers, and statistics database entries. Jogurney (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:41, 19 May 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 03:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iran–United States proxy conflict[edit]

Iran–United States proxy conflict (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)

Taking from my removed PROD, "A completely fabricated creation consisting nothing but OR and SYNTH alleging such conflict between Iran and the United States. Not a single source backs up such a conflict because it does not exist. This is taking material from Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict and Iran–Israel proxy conflict articles."

The creator has a history of adding OR and SYNTH in the Iran-Saudia Arabia article and this is the biggest addition of OR and SYNTH of his. Quite a number of sources are from opinion pieces which are not reliable to a degree unless it's quoting a certain aspect of relation to the article. Such as a quote. But there aren't quotes of individuals cited that I've seen.

There is no such proxy conflict between Iran and the United States. Both countries are on opposite sides of various conflicts, but that doesn't mean there is a proxy war/conflict happening or has happened since November 4, 1979, the date of the Iran hostage crisis. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another major issue is the belligerents in the infobox. How is it possible that Albania is on the side of the U.S. by upgrading ties with Turkey to strategic partnership? The only mention of this proxy conflict is a link to another article, both of these on TRT World's website. TRT World may not be credible, although I'm not sure of it's use as a reliable source, it is funded by the Turkish Radio and Television Corporation, which is owned by the Turkish government. So state-run media is not credible which it can be considered.

Sections within the article have no relation to the main subject. 2006 Lebanon war, 2008 Lebanon conflict, and 2009 Hezbollah-Egypt incident make no mention of U.S. involvement nor do two of these three articles. The 2006 war article makes mention of the U.S. but mainly of its support of Israel and statements and resolution passed by Congress and government officials in response to the conflict. So there is no connection or proof of such a conflict. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are multiple sources that states that there is in fact an American-Iranian conflict since 1979. Plus they fight each other throughout all these mentioned comments. Plus for a 12 year old like me, I dont know these stuff. yet. This is no OR or Synth, this reliable.Mausebru the Peruvian (talk, contibs) 17:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is speedy keep.Mausebru the Peruvian (talk, contibs) 17:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no such thing as a proxy conflict between Iran and the United States. No news agency, newspaper or encyclopedia describes the incidents between them as a proxy conflict. There is an article in the name of Iran–United States relations after 1979. There is little point in gathering sources about attacks and incidents between the two countries and creating an unfounded naming. In the event that articles of this type are repeatedly created, I suggest protecting them.--Sakiv (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is biased as hell too. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with 2019–2021 Persian Gulf crisis: This is pure OR and SYNTH as argued by WikiCleanerMan. Pahlevun (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is going on since 1979, but there are already so many articles that we don't need a broad article about it. Though a disambiguation can be still tolerated. Agletarang (talk) 13:19, 20 May 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 03:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raunaq Ahuja[edit]

Raunaq Ahuja (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. Doesn’t have reliable news coverage even not a single source. Fails WP:NACTOR. IndaneLove (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: He does seem to have acted in some films here -[1], I think it is him. RS6784 (talk) 07:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB isn’t a reliable source.

IndaneLove (talk) 09:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:N issue is definitely there.RS6784 (talk) 11:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 15 May 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. BD2412 T 04:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllis Grant[edit]

Phyllis Grant (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)

brought to my attention after an account claiming to be the subject requested deletion (User:Balin80) at the help desk, but either way i don't see how this should be an article. only two of the references are about the subject while the rest are just passing mentions. Troutfarm27 (Talk) 23:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not enough all by itself, certainly, but I don't see how the CBC isn't independent. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent news sources in the search results other than tabloids about another Phyllis Grant. lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 19:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Strictly speaking, the subject's desire to not have a Wikipedia article isn't relevant — if a person has strong and properly sourced evidence of passing our notability criteria, then we have to keep an article regardless of their personal wishes. And while there are things stated here that would probably count as valid notability claims if they were properly referenced to reliable sources (i.e. media coverage about her and her work), there's nothing that would be "inherently" notable enough to justify relying entirely on primary sources like this — but even on a ProQuest search for older coverage that might not have googled, I'm just finding coverage in community hyperlocals around Bathurst/Miramichi and/or coincidental text matches on other unrelated people, rather than nationalizing WP:GNG-worthy coverage. And even the CBC hit proffered above, while fine as it goes, is still far from enough in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 19 May 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. Comments, but no clear consensus and no indication one is forthcoming after two relists with no input. No issue with a renom at a time you think it will engender discussion Star Mississippi 01:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abu-Abdullah Adelabu[edit]

Abu-Abdullah Adelabu (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 sources for this article that I'm able to check appear to be either websites associated with the subject of the article or sources that don't mention the subject of the article at all. I haven't been able to check the newspaper sources provided, but I have been unsuccessful in locating other reliable sources that establish the notability of this person. This article in its current state clearly does not hold up to WP:BLP standards of sourcing, and I see no evidence that this article can be improved significantly, or that its subject is even notable. On a tangential note, the user who created this article added mentions of this person on several other pages, e.g. Ghana Empire, that seem to fail verification. For example, I have been unable to find any reference to a work by Adelabu titled The Ghana World: A Pride for the Continent that predates its addition to the Ghana Empire page in 2012; all mentions of it seem to be copying Wikipedia. Ornithopsis (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — I think it only needs to be cleaned up. Deleting is not cleaning up. Reading Beans Talk to the Beans? 16:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm perfectly open to it being cleaned up instead of deleted, but to do that, we'd need reliable sources. What reliable sources are available to us here? Ornithopsis (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is Sunni Islam a school of philosophy? Why is it listed as such in the article. If this article does not get deleted, please someone knowledgeable in this area should change the infobox parameter to something more appropriate, like ideology or something.HandsomeBoy (talk) 04:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 15 May 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.
  • Comment Hmm, content aside this is some pretty fishy citation. The "Aljazeera" citation links to "WorldDefenseReview", and half the cites are to alleged newspaper mentions, but without either links or page numbers - it is hardly set up for ready verification. Leaning weak delete due to notability not being clearly established in coverage by reliable, secondary sources. A news search only turns up two trivial mentions. I was just beaten to this by the closer ... not sure if this close is correct. Surely an OP vote to delete with two neutral comments is still a lean toward delete? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melvin George (Mel)[edit]

Melvin George (Mel) (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)

Appears to fail WP:NBIO. – Ploni (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, mostly puffery with blatant COI editing, no indication of notability. — kashmīrī TALK 22:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a refbombed article on a non-notable engineer, inventor and businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promotional. எ (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 1.Multiple sites use the same title and content, those sites should be promotional sites or content farms and should not be used. At least most of the site's content are copy-pasted.(product.nanjixiong.com / veewell.com / hinyeung.com / dyfocus.com / cxsw3d.com / bbs.fcc.qinggl.com / xuandouwan.com / 360kuai.com / sohu.com / yidianzixun.com / qq.com / kknews.cc / zhihu.com) 2.Many sources use user generated sites like forum(bbs.fcc.qinggl.com) / facebook.com / youtube.com / twitter.com / instagram.com.--Rastinition (talk) 22:49, 16 May 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 23:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher W. Mayer[edit]

Christopher W. Mayer (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)

Appears to fail WP:NBIO. Ploni (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder Woman (JoJo song)[edit]

Wonder Woman (JoJo song) (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 and unremarkable release. Fails WP:GNG and unlikely to ever grow. Some of the coverage is also unreliably sourced e.g. Breatheheavy and ThatGrapeJuice. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:34, 15 May 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. If the article can be re-created with more sources, let it be done. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 08:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zainab Ujudud Shariff[edit]

Zainab Ujudud Shariff (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:NBIO. Ploni (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Nigeria. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I tagged this as a BLP PROD since there were no refs about the person. The article seemed to be largely an advert for the books written by the subject. The originating author removed the PROD without improving the referencing. Very unclear where notability is supposed to lie. Fails WP:GNG.  Velella  Velella Talk   20:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - She sounds like a lovely person and I'm sure she is a great herbalist, however I am not finding anything in either the article sourcing or in an online WP:BEFORE search to substantiate her notability per WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO or WP:BASIC criteria. It may be WP:TOOSOON for the subject of the article. Netherzone (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Googled about her, she seemed enough notable to me. I can try improving the article. Lightbluerain (Talk💬 Contribs✏️) 13:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Campbell (architect)[edit]

Jim Campbell (architect) (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)

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a smalltown architect, not making any strong claim to passing our inclusion criteria for architects. The notability claim here is essentially that he exists and has done work in his own local area, which is not an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself -- but the sourcing isn't really getting him over WP:GNG either, as the footnoting here comprises two hits in a community hyperlocal magazine in his own area, one magazine article that glancingly mentions Campbell in the process of being much more about a house and its owner than about Campbell per se, and just one source that actually starts to count for something toward WP:GNG (but doesn't get him to the finish line all by itself if it's the only GNG-worthy source in the article.)
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Ontario. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A small town architect needs good sources and we lack this here. The tone is also totally off, we do not reefer to subject by their first name. I started to correct this, and did a little, but it was too bound up in what makes it look like the article is either written based on original research by a friend or is based on hyper-local human interest sources, either way it is clearly not based on the reliable secondary sources that are indepdent of the subject that are required for all articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 16 May 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 Winged Cloud. ✗plicit 23:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sakura_Beach_2[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sakura_Beach_2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a copy-paste and the game isn't notable - this is the second game and the first one does not have an article. TheForgottenKing (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel Processing Letters[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No sourcing found. Nanosci (talk · contribs) added content, but it does not seem to be any form of reputable sourcing. However, given their comments on the talk page, I am thus assuming their efforts to be a de facto deprodding and taking it to AFD for further analysis. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:12, 15 May 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 08:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Wayz[edit]

Ariel Wayz (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)

Unable to find enough resources in published reliable sources. fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Blocked sock Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There's reporting on her from The New Times and so I added it in and she seems like a notable musician in Rwanda. 11:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
The above comment was by me at 11:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC). CT55555 (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete nothing more than paid for vanity spam. Merely having your name appear in a notable publication doesn't make it inherently reliable, doubly so when said publications take pay for publication without disclosure. The sourcing is weak and there isn't anything better to be found. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per request on my Talk, I have reverted my close, restored the article and am relisting for further discussion as to whether The New Times content is editorial or promotional.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further comment I've just realized/remembered, the nominator is sock blocked so I should have relisted this regardless of the query on my Talk. Apologies. Star Mississippi 17:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (I already !voted keep above) I think this hinges on if The New Times is a reliable source. I honestly don't know. Here's what I can ascertain:
  1. It's the first listed newspapers on BBC for Rwanda newspapers https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14093244
  2. The Wikipedia article and the BBC note it's proximity to government
  3. Of course, plenty reliable sources are proximate to government, BBC, CBC, Al Jazeera, although I would suggest The New Times is not a reliable source for Rwandan politics.
  4. The Wikipedia WP:RSPSS noticeboard is silent on The New Times. A search of the archive reveals nothing.
So my question is: does anyone have any evidence, any reason to assume it's a bad source? CT55555 (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, She has a good career as a musician being both a solo artist and the lead vocalist of a band, and being reported by The New Times is very remarkable. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Abhishek[edit]

Calvin Abhishek (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)

Refunded PROD. Still a footballer with no appearances that fails WP:GNG. None of the three references used in the article are from independent sources. All of the Google News hits are squad list mentions. This Indian source search only comes back with social media, stats sites and Wikipedia mirrors. I found a Fisto Sports interview with the subject but this contains no actual third-party coverage of the subject so is not WP:SIGCOV. Plus questions like "One super power you wish you had?" and "Lamest excuse you have ever given to your teacher?" are not the sort of things that we can build an encyclopaedia article from. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Nylander (disambiguation)[edit]

William Nylander (disambiguation) (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)

Disambiguation page not needed per WP:TWODABS. A hatnote is sufficient. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The ice hockey player is clearly the primary topic, and disambiguation can be handled with a hatnote.—ShelfSkewed Talk 20:08, 15 May 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 Rashism. No prejudice against instead redirecting to Russian fascism. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 08:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update. A further explanation has been requested. In the discussion below, there was a slight majority in favor of delete/redirect. Moreover, those supporting delete/redirect have, as best I can determine, the more convincing argument: without more evidence that Russia is or has been fascist in the traditional sense of the term, rather than in a uniquely Russian sense (i.e., Red fascism, Rashism), the article would seem to be a content fork. If I have gravely misunderstood the discussion, please advise. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism in Russia[edit]

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

This page was created as a page to present the history and philosophy of fascism in Russia going back to the 1800s to provide a full historical context. It has been suggested that the page be redirected to Rashism and history of fascism in Russia should be presented via a DAB page with links to individual pages. Gusfriend (talk) 10:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rashism#Scope of the article was where the discussion happened.
Rashism was a redirect[4] from 6 April - 10 April when Fascism in Russia was turned into an article from draft on 7 April.[5]
Initially it was agreed that Rashism should be a redirect to Fascism in Russia and Fascism in Russia should be turned into an article but this discussion later concluded that Rashism should be a stand-alone page.
Now that discussion indicates that we don't need Fascism in Russia anymore.
The content of Fascism in Russia shows the article is just WP:CFORK of different pages such as Red fascism, Rashism, Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality, Black Hundreds and Fascist (insult).
If you only want to highlight the relevant subjects related to the subject then disambiguation Russian fascism is good enough for that.
I also note that we don't have a Fascism in the United States. It redirects to Fascism in North America. Similarly, this page should redirect to Rashism. LearnIndology (talk) 11:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per above. Either article could exist, not both since they concern the same subject. NavjotSR (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Imperial politics of 1833 are not normally described as “Rashism.” The main article about the 190-year history of fascism in Russia ought to be called “Fascism in Russia”: if these two are to be merged—a different discussion, I think—then this descriptive title and slightly older edit history ought to be kept. To me it looks like this article is underdeveloped and needs expansion. A good start would be merging some material from the other, which is more about the contemporary phenomenon of 2022 and its conception embodied by the name. —Michael Z. 17:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Imperial politics of 1833" are not described as "fascist" either. And the suggestion that "merging some material from the other" would in fact only confirm further that this article cannot be created without WP:CHERRYPICKING and WP:POVFORKing. Both are discouraged on Wikipedia. LearnIndology (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fascism is the ideology that emerged during 1920s. Our article on Fascism makes no mention of existence of fascism in Russia thus WP:RGW applies. Lorstaking 10:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until proven Rashism and Fascism in Russia are synonyms and Rashism is more recognizable than Fascism in Russia per WP:TITLE. There is enough significant coverage in reliable independent sources to give Fascism in Russia notability per WP:N
    • Motyl, Alexander John (2007-12-03). "Is Putin's Russia Fascist?". The National Interest. Archived from the original on 2013-07-31. Retrieved 2022-04-13.
    • Umland, Andreas (2008-03-26). "Is Putin's Russia really "fascist"? A response to Alexander Motyl". History News Network. Archived from the original on 2022-04-22. Retrieved 2022-04-13.
    • Motyl, Alexander John (2016-03-01) [2016-01-23]. "Putin's Russia as a fascist political system". Communist and Post-Communist Studies. 49 (1): 25–36. doi:10.1016/j.postcomstud.2016.01.002. ISSN 0967-067X. Archived from the original on 2022-04-22. Retrieved 2022-04-22.
    • Yes, Putin and Russia are fascist — a political scientist shows how they meet the textbook definition
    • Russia-Ukraine war: Vladimir Putin’s bizarre claim Russia 'saving' Ukraine from West’s Nazi dictatorship
    • The War in Ukraine Has Unleashed a New Word

Manyareasexpert (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Manyareasexpert: Sure lets analyze the sources you have provided.
  • First source: Talks about Putinism by focusing on "Putin's Russia". Significant sentence from the source: "Although Putin's Russia possesses the defining characteristics of fascism, they have not yet assumed the form of a consolidated, coherent and hence fully-stable political system."
  • Second source is debunking aspects of the above one and says "In assessing Russia´s fate today and in the next years, we should reserve the label “fascist” for only those scenarios that indeed deserve this most value-laden term of the 20th century."
  • Third source is just an argument, and it is about Putinism that "If my definition of fascism and consensus regarding Putin's Russia are not accepted as valid, then it follows, logically that Putin's Russian may not legitimately termed fascist or fascistoid."
  • Fourth source talks about Rashism; "Ukrainian media, public and policymakers almost unanimously began calling the Russian president and the state he leads “rashyst.” The term is a hybrid of a derogatory moniker for Russia – “rasha” – and “fascist.”"
  • Fifth source - It is quoting Motyl, but again it is about Putinism; "Putin has completely dismantled all of Russia's nascent democratic institutions. Elections are neither free nor fair."
  • Sixth source - That is about Rashism.
Remember, Rashism is "a claim that Russia has been transformed into a fascist or neo-fascist country. It is also used for referring to the ideology of Russian military expansionism." There is no confirmed "fascism in Russia" as of yet. The Rashism article already describes all the speculations and possibilities that have been provided in your sources, while Putinism#Characteristics discuss the rest. I hope you are convinced now. NavjotSR (talk) 11:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but sources you saying are talking about Putinism do not mention "Putinism". They do discuss if Putin's Russia is fascist however. Which fits into "Fascism in Russia". Those you saying are talking about "Rashism" are actually talking about Fascism in Russia more. Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:POVFORK. Not every single point of view needs a new article when it has been already covered in an existing Wikipedia article. You would want to create Authoritarianism in Russia, Personality cult of Putin and more based on above sources but don't. Lorstaking 14:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thats what has been said originally. Keep until proven Rashism and Fascism in Russia are synonyms and Rashism is more recognizable than Fascism in Russia.
But I'm starting to think they are not completely equal. "Rashism", as sources say, is just a nowadays word for Russian Fascism / Fascism in Russia / you decide. Manyareasexpert (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete Not a useful subject and has been already clarified at Rashism. CharlesWain (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Duplicate article at this stage since Rashism is described as "Russian fascism" and 1 article is enough for this subject. Also agree with analysis above. >>> Extorc.talk 05:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the deletions argument weirdly relies on Rashism (an absolutely novel term invented a few weeks ago) as an excuse to attempt to delete a history of fascism in Russia that goes back at least a century. Have people forgotten that Stalin was a red fascist, for example? No less than The New York Times wrote in 1939: «Hitlerism is brown communism, Stalinism is red fascism».[1] Why would anyone want to whitewash Stalin? XavierItzm (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your statements are misleading. You are already aware that we have article on Red fascism which is just a accusation, not an actual fascsim. Similarly, anyone who knows the term "Rashism" would already know that it wasn't  "invented a few weeks ago"  but is in use since 2014.[6] Yoonadue (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If this discussion goes into which article name is preferable than this deletion discussion should be closed and a new discussion on proper name for the article should be started. Manyareasexpert (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Editorial: The Russian Betrayal", The New York Times, September 18, 1939.
  • Delete. This article is not about the Fascist movement in Russia. It is about things that people want to tar with the brush of Fascism because they don't like it. That doesn't mean that I am a supporter of the rule of Stalin or Putin. It means that the article irretrievably fails WP:NPOV. SpinningSpark 16:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reliable sources use the word "Fascism" to describe Russia. As historian Timothy Snyder explains, "Rashism" is a made-up, combination of "pronunciations of words in both English, Ukrainian and Russian." Also, President of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, Dzhokhar Dudayev is the man who coined the original term & definition of "rashism" and Dudayev says Rashism "differs from other forms of fascism, racism, and nationalism by a more extreme cruelty, both to man and to nature. It is based on the destruction of everything and everyone, the tactics of scorched earth." So clearly fascism & rashism are different words with different definitions. Therefore, both articles should be kept and both articles should be kept separated from each other - they are not the same. BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the sources have found any actual "fascism" in Russia. "Rashism" is more accurate since talks about a different brand "Russian fascism" than what we normally see. Although "Rashism" is just an allegation. We need only 1 article on this subject, not more. GenuineArt (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As already defined that it is a WP:POVFORK and cannot be developed on its own. GenuineArt (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per WP:POVFORK and WP:RGW as already described by SpinningSpark and Lorstaking. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and redirect per explanations given by GenuineArt and SpinningSpark: I have contributed to many articles related to far-right ideologies and movements over the years, and I never heard of the term "Rashism" before stumbling upon this AfD, similarly to the users XavierItzm and BetsyRMadison; it may be true that this neologism was invented in 2014, but definitely is not a concept so widespread to be recognizable to most people, and seems to be nothing more than an euphemism for "Putinism". I suggest to copy and paste the sourced content from the article Fascism in Russia into the "Russia" section of the article Neo-fascism or to write a new section about Russia in the article Far-right politics, since most of it is concerned with far-right nationalist extremism in the post-Soviet Russian Federation (1990s onwards). GenoV84 (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The page is 15 205 bytes long. The section on Rashishm is 1 164 bytes long, and it is only 7% of the article. Whereas your criticism of Rashism is spot-on, its just so weird to advocate for the deletion of a 15,205-byte article just because it contains 1,164 bytes of recentism. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. XavierItzm (talk) 06:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right about that, in fact I didn't propose to delete Fascism in Russia and redirect it to Rashism; other users above have explained that Rashism originally was a redirect to Fascism in Russia ([7]) and later became a standalone article. I suggested to redirect it to either Neo-fascism or Far-right politics and move most of its post-Soviet content to one of those articles. Moreover, the first sections of the article Fascism in Russia, which seem to pin the term "fascist" on several Russian monarchist and ultra-nationalist movements arbitrarily (Black Hundreds, Union of the Russian People, and Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality, which had been in existence since 1905, before Mussolini's foundation of the first original Fascist movement in 1914), are more confusing than anything, and the section about "Red fascism" in the Soviet Union looks even worse. GenoV84 (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but merge some articles into this one (TL; DR: merge Rashism into this title, which is better). Sources like [8] [9], [10] , [11] and, [12] clearly indicate that this (Fascism in Russia/Russian fascism) is a concept discussed in academic literature. There is indeed an issue that this has also been labelled Rashism, Putinism, Red fascism, and is related to other concepts (neo-nazism in Russia, Russian nationalism, Russian imperialism, etc.) in the form of a Venn diagram. It's complex, but we need a main article under a name that is simple, and easily recognizable. IMHO, Russian fascism/fascism in Russia are more common terms than Rashizm (which seems to be a relatively recent term, a Ukrainian neologism). I'd suggest merging at minimum Rashism, and possibly Putinism and Red fascism into this article instead, as I do feel like we have quite a few POV forks discussing the same issue, although frankly, it would take some more in-depth research to be sure what needs to be merged. Anyway, I'd strongly prefer to discuss Russian nazism under a simple, descriptive name than under Rashism. PS. Regarding pre-1914 content, it can be seen as 'background'. Anyway, it would be good to base this article on a a reliabe, academic oveview, rather than WP:SYNTH borderin on WP:OR that I feel we are curently dealing with. PPS. A good indication a merge is needed is this little telling tidbit: in the lead of Rashism, we see "Rashism... also known as Russian fascism". The bare minimum is merging Fascism in Russia with Rashism, all other articles can be discussed elsewhere (and some of the, had been). But seriously, Russian fascism = Rashism.
PPS. It's also interesting to compare rashism (wikidata:Q15975478) and fascism in Russia (wikidata:Q13479496). The first lists, currently: be Рускі фашызмen Fascism in Russiaes Fascismo en Rusiaet Fašism Venemaalid Fasisme Rusiaja ロシアのファシズムnl Russisch fascismeru Русский фашизмtt Urıs faşizmıuk Російський фашизмzh 俄罗斯法西斯主义. While the second, ar الفاشية الروسيةaz Raşizmbe_x_old Расейскі фашызмbe Рашызмbg Рашизъмca Raixizmcs Rašismusde Raschismusen Rashismet Rašismhr Rušizamid Rashismja ラシズムka რაშიზმიko 라시즘lv Rašismspa ਰਾਸ਼ੀਵਾਦpl Faszyzm rosyjskipt Russismoro Ruscismsh Rušizamsk Ruský fašizmussl Ruski fašizemtr Ruşizmtt Рашизмuk Рашизмxmf რაშიზმიyi ראשיזםzh 俄西斯主义 . I find the fact that both entries include numerous variants of "Russian fascism/Fasicm in Russia" telling again that many folks are confused regarding what difference there is between those concepts (and I don't agree with [13] by User:Veverve). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good roundup. Manyareasexpert (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We should really stop these frequent AfDs and concentrate on the contents. Past discussion indicated that we've had consensus that we need a general broad scope article on "Fascism in Russia" discussing things macroscopically down to the historical roots, and another article (now named "Rashism") on the more recent developments. While there is some overlap, a lot of the contents which would ultimately have to be included in the "Fascism in Russia" article would not belong into the "Rashism" article, and vice versa. What is currently going on in Russia could not be discussed at the necessary depth in the former article, which in turn would also discuss historical developments not related to Rashism/Ruscism/Russism. This does not mean that the Rashism article shouldn't have a history section of its own, but it should focus only on stuff actually related to Рашизм and русизм. There are corner-cases and we'll still have to find out where to best put some contents, but we should do so through normal article talk page discussions, not sledgehammer AfDs.
Some people have argued that we would not need the "Fascism in Russia" article because the disambiguation page "Russian fascism" would do the job as well. I don't think so, one does not rule out the other. I think we need both, as a disambiguation page is just a navigation aid and not a historical discussion in context. So, actually, we need all three articles. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not seeing a valid rationale for deletion. If, per above, there is some organisational work to be done then it can be done outside of the deletion process. Artw (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This makes no sense. Read the comments by Lorstaking, Learnindology, SpinningSpark and others. The problem is with the existence of this article that it needs to be deleted. Those who voted for deletion haven't just objected to the content. TheRollBoss001 (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Rashism, largely per SpinningSpark and GenoV84. The main issue with the article is that it is a WP:POVFORK and if it got expanded with the help of above sources then it will have great overlap with Putinism and Rashism. I agree with this argument. I also agree with SpinningSpark that there is absolutely nothing about "Fascism in Russia" on this article but "what could be like fascism in Russia".
The sources as already analyzed above come to the same conclusion.
To say that we should retain this article by merging other articles, as Piotrus suggests, would in fact only create more problems because it will result in duplication and the another major concern that we are having this article even when there is no proven "Fascism in Russia" would contradict every basic article about fascism.
There are also chances that it would create a bad precedent and cause creations of problematic articles like Fascism in China, Fascism in Syria, Fascism in Germany and so on, thus it is best to have this one deleted. TheRollBoss001 (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have article on "Russian Fascism" article as Rashism. Why do we need to duplicate the article?
You are supposed to cite example of duplicate article about any other country except Russia, which is seeing two duplicate articles about the single subject.
Just speculating or doubtfully connecting links with fascism is going to mislead readers.
Have you read your sources? This source 1964 only asks "Was There a Russian Fascism?" and apart form the insertion of the word "fascism" on the title as a clickbait there is nothing about "fascism" there. This one about "a Russian fascist in Connecticut" and has no actual connection with "Fascism in Russia" and it explicitly states "The words “Russian” and “Fascist” do not seem to go together comfortably". >>> Extorc.talk 15:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. the re is enough information for a separate article. There do seem to be problems with content, which should be discussed separately. DGG ( talk ) 07:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
70% of article is a WP:POVFORK of Rashism. You need to ask if the content is WP:DUE. I don't see a single sentence in the entire article which justifies make-believe "fascism in Russia". >>> Extorc.talk 15:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given the dubious and vague handwaves above, I am presenting an accurate analysis of the article as it fails to establish any so-called "Fascism in Russia", but creates mere speculations and ill-formed connections.
It uses books that don't even mention the word "fascism" in the entire books.[16],[17][18]
Text is directly lifted from Red Fascism and relies mostly on the sentence that "Italian anarchist Luigi Fabbri described the term Red fascism to describe Communists who argued for the use of the methods of fascism to attain their goals". It is nothing about "Fascism in Russia".
The subject "Fascism in Russia" is itself being disputed in this section with "The labelling of the Russia, or indeed any country, fascist is complicated by the aftermath of World War II and appeals to the sense of righteousness of fighting Nazi Germany.[12][13][14]" Nothing about "Fascism in Russia".
Only one sentence and it is "In the 1980s, the group Pamyat ("Memory") was supporting the Black Hundreds ideology, which is close to fascism." This fringe "group" had no power and being "close to fascism" does not justify inclusion.
Only one sentence that notes "The Liberal-Democratic Party of Russia, founded in 1990, is considered to be fascist.[4] The Russian National Unity was a fascist group created in 1990.[4]" It doesn't matter whether this is correct or not, what really matters is if they ever got any credit for the alleged fascism in Russia. Clearly that is not even the case here so this is WP:UNDUE.
Whole section is lifted from Rashism except the introductory sentence which is about Putinism and it has a source that say that "Russia today is not an illiberal democracy: It is an early-stage fascist state." Overall, the source hasn't admitted that Russia is fascist but it can become one. See Rashism for that.
Unsourced section listing all banned groups.
Another unsourced section that listed all banned groups.
Paragraph forked from Fascist (insult).

The low quality WP:SYNTH, misrepresentation of sources, and WP:OR that has been done here could never make it to the main Fascism or Fascism and ideology article if it was done there.

The violation of WP:POVFORK is clear because no attempts were made to expand this subject anywhere else.

Over all, this article should not exist until it is established through scholarly consensus that Russia is a fascist state. But even then we would need to get rid of Rashism because 2 articles on the same subject just cannot exist. CharlesWain (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this article should not exist until it is established through scholarly consensus that Russia is a fascist state - actually, no. It is enough for article sources to meet Wikipedia:Notability for article to be kept. Look at those sources presented up before in this discussion. Manyareasexpert (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen anyone dispute notability. Users seem opposed to apparent duplication. See WP:NOPAGE. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOPAGE. CharlesWain's analysis is spot on and I don't think there is any doubt anymore that this article overlaps with Rashism because this article was created as an alternative to Rashism (known as "Russian fascism") when the latter was redirected on April 2022. But circumstances seem to have been changed and Rashism has become a more established article as such there is clearly no need to continue retaining this article. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 02:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context.. Which one is broader, Rashism or Fascism in Russia? Manyareasexpert (talk) 07:28, 23 May 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Future Network Development Conference[edit]

Future Network Development Conference (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 appears not to be notable as per WP:EVENT, and possibly self-promotional. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. 刘已粲 (2020-08-14). 张悦鑫 (ed.). "第四届未来网络发展大会开幕首发多项重大科技成果" [A number of major scientific and technological achievements were released at the opening of the 4th Future Network Development Conference]. Guangming Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "The Future Network Development Conference is hosted by the Chinese Academy of Engineering and the Nanjing Municipal People's Government. Municipal Bureau of Industry and Information Technology, Jiangning District People's Government, Nanjing Jiangning Economic and Technological Development Zone Management Committee and other units undertake. ... At the opening ceremony, Zijinshan Laboratory took the lead in releasing a number of major achievements, including the world's first deterministic WAN innovation experiment, a data-driven B5G network intelligent open platform ... Three major scientific and technological achievements are the important highlights of this conference, which will affect and reconstruct the ecological pattern of the future network."

    2. 顾姝姝 (2021-06-18). 张; 吴纪攀 (eds.). "第五届未来网络发展大会闭幕 总投资154亿元产业项目签约" [The 5th Future Network Development Conference closes. Industrial projects with a total investment of 15.4 billion yuan were signed]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "On the afternoon of the 18th, the two-day 5th Future Network Development Conference came to an end in Jiangning, Nanjing. During the two-day event, a number of major innovation achievements were released, and major technological infrastructure was launched. In addition, the signing of innovative projects, summit forums, and exhibition of scientific and technological achievements have made people perceive the gratifying achievements of future network technology innovation and industrial development. At the closing ceremony, 28 major industrial projects with a total investment of 15.46 billion yuan were signed."

    3. 刘丹; 熊旭, eds. (2018-05-14). "全球未来网络发展峰会举行" [Global Future Network Development Conference Held]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "The summit, co-hosted by the Chinese Academy of Engineering and the Nanjing Municipal Government, is the most cutting-edge international dialogue and cooperation platform in the future network field."

    4. 孙寅 (2021-06-18). 陈硕 (ed.). "未来网络发展大会进一步构建开放网络创新生态" [Future Network Development Conference further builds an open network innovation ecosystem] (in Chinese). Xinhua News Agency. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.

      The article notes: "It can be seen from the 5th Future Network Development Conference held in Nanjing on the 17th. This conference continued the "tradition" of the previous four sessions, and re-released a number of major achievements, including "multi-cloud platform for future network test facilities", "5G network data acquisition and analysis system and performance tracking system", and "backbone network-level programmable switching equipment operating system"."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Future Network Development Conference (simplified Chinese: 未来网络发展大会; traditional Chinese: 未來網絡發展大會) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am the writer,I think this article should remain,because this conference is sustainable ,and it have some important events that will make some difference to the world. --Omichang (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: on the face of it, Cunard's sources have countered the nom but more input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep per User:pburka's rationale. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Temple[edit]

Twin Temple (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 band that fails to meet WP:BAND and generally lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Celestina007 (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are still an indie band, but they are growing. They have released two albums and sevens singles. They have been mentioned in magazines such as Revolver and LA Times. Alex Jones and Infowars also did an entire segment about them. They are gaining quite the following around the world, and they are also forming their own musical style.

I have no affiliation with the band, with the soul exception of having heard and read about them recently and was surprised that there was no entry about them on Wikipedia.

They also have over a million listeners on Spotify.

I do believe they live up to Wikipedia’s requirements for being notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VicStr (talk • contribs) 04:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:BAND, and even some of the claims of notability made in the article aren't supported by linked sources (article says Alex Jones devoted an entire episode, but one link says it was a segment, and another just says they got his attention. -fuzzy510 (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO they at least qualify for point #7: “Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city.”

They have invented their own genre, which makes them unique and culturally interesting. At least interesting enough for being picked up by LA Times, Revolver Magazine, and Metalhammer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VicStr (talk • contribs) 09:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been up for almost three weeks now. I think it’s longer AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VicStr (talk • contribs) 00:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete While there are a few bits of coverage, there still isn't enough to solidify notability as there are no sources that the band have made the charts for their songs or albums. Fails to meet WP:BAND. HorrorLover555 (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about WP:NBAND#1? They don't need to chart if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works. pburka (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • You make a good point and you are right, if there are multiple coverage, then I suppose it'll suffice - even if there is a few to back it. It should still be enough so in that case, I'll change to Keep. HorrorLover555 (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Okumu[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kevin Okumu (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 fails GNG and NFOOTY. Recreated after AFD, speedy deletion contested as the sources were apparently newer ones. But all of them are simple transfer updates, no significant coverage. BlameRuiner (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete lacks significant coverage 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - looking through the sources already in the article, it not only meets WP:SPORTCRIT but also meets GNG. These aren't all simple references. Nothing wrong with significant reporting about transfers; if they weren't notable, it wouldn't be covered, or would only be a mention. Nfitz (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - was already deleted once for failing GNG and NFOOTY, and still has not satisfied either. We are now into time sink territory. Atsme 💬 📧 21:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No SIGCOV. No need to keep posting a non-notable article. Megtetg34 (talk) 06:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. SIGCOV totally lacking. Quotes from the subject or people affiliated with him are completely non-independent and cannot be considered for GNG, which leaves very, very little actual commentary on him. Most of the transfer news articles are just slightly reworded versions of press releases from his team, so those are not independent anyway.

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://futaa.com/ke/article/212361/wazito-fc-completes-their-sixth-signing-with-okumu-s-acquisition Yes but mostly just non-independent quotes Yes No primarily quotes and routine transfer news ✘ No
https://businesstoday.co.ke/hard-tackle-from-wazito-fc-in-battle-for-top-talent/ Yes Yes reprint from Daily Nation No primarily quotes and routine transfer news on two players ✘ No
https://www.the-star.co.ke/sports/2020-08-26-chumsy-hails-city-stars-as-he-joins-wazito/ Yes but mostly just non-independent quotes Yes No only 4 non-quote sentences, all of them restating the same routine transfer info as the other sources ✘ No
https://www.goal.com/en/news/kevin-okumu-gor-mahia-target-signs-for-wazito-fc-from/1serkb2iznpj01fejgi37ymxfo/ Yes but mostly just non-independent quotes Yes No primarily quotes and routine transfer news ✘ No
https://futaa.com/ke/article/219609/wazito-fc-left-back-kevin-okumu-rejoins-nairobi-city-stars Yes but mostly just non-independent quotes Yes No primarily quotes and routine transfer news ✘ No
https://litkenya.com/devsite1/wazito-fc-defender-rejoins-nairobi-city-stars-on-loan/ Yes Yes No primarily quotes and routine transfer news, essentially identical content to source 5 ✘ No
https://www.the-star.co.ke/sports/2021-02-15-nairobi-city-stars-part-ways-with-trio-chumsy-returns/ No same author as other Star source Yes No heavy paraphrasing of the same press release used by sources 5 & 6 (" ✘ No
https://www.the-star.co.ke/sports/2021-03-09-city-stars-coach-hails-new-signings-omwenga-and-okumu/ No same author as other Star sources Yes No barely mentions Chumsy ✘ No
https://www.mozzartsportke.com/football/news/chumsy-sets-ambitious-target-for-the-season/8734/ Yes Yes No 4 sentences relaying his performance and targets for this season. Best source so far, but still not SIGCOV. ✘ 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) 23:05, 22 May 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 23:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Madden[edit]

Duncan Madden (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 Joeykai (talk) 16:18, 15 May 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. Star Mississippi 00:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's Amore! (TV series)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Deprodded with suggestion to merge, but doing so seems like WP:UNDUE. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:58, 15 May 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 03:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of disc golf courses in Malaysia[edit]

List of disc golf courses in Malaysia (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 demonstate notability and isn't properly sourced, but more importantly, fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, as it is essentially a re–presentation of the Disc Golf Association's directory of courses. The editor who wrote it is still learning the ropes, so the issues are understandable. To make it clear, the outcome I believe most appropriate is draftify but I don't want to go ahead and unilaterally draftify an NPP reviewed article. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input. The PDGA is the highest organization and sanctioning body for the sport of disc golf, so this was used for most citations. Would using google location links help to make this article better sourced? Sirspinzalot (talk) 06:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is NOT inherited simply because it appears on a directory of the sport's governing body. Ajf773 (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nommed, and doesn't meet WP:NLIST. If the courses listed were notable in their own right, one could argue that this serves some purpose in summarising them, but they aren't, so it doesn't. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. We don't even have an article on Disc golf in Malaysia, which it where such a list would belong until such time that a split were warranted. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for transparency's sake, there actually was such an article, but I moved it to draftspace as it was not even remotely suitable for mainspace as it was. Of course, NOTDIRECTORY still applies. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 02:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is sourcing quality is not at the level required Star Mississippi 15:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Blackwell[edit]

Michael Blackwell (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 Wikipedia:Notability (people). The only references cited are primary sources from BCHfamily.org. I have failed to find any reliable sources providing significant coverage of Michael Blackwell or his business/ministry. SVTCobra 18:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He is mentioned in this news article from 2008. I have now added it as a source. Seckends (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment One further source found, unsure how reliable/notable it is, the Triad Business Journal. [23]. Might just barely pass the notability sniff test. Oaktree b (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are not adequate. Person is not adequately notable. Pete unseth (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, He has a notable position and sources are fair. Davidgoodheart (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - as it stands he's got 2 sources. Need 1 more, and not from his place of employment as the majority are. As it stands, topic doesn't pass GNG for inclusion. Megtetg34 (talk) 06:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the quality of the sources is not adequate--they are basically promotional notices. DGG ( talk ) 07:39, 22 May 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 08:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shueh-li Ong[edit]

Shueh-li Ong (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. All I found was this ref. Jsfodness (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I see several sources here but I don't have access to most of them. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll vote Keep based on the source presented below, as well as other news articles that I now have access to, such as Not happy? They just make their own instruments, Sisters do it for themselves, Calling the (classical) tunes / Rare performance and Shriek and sing, which all give her significant coverage. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Found a replication of a news article here of Theremin quintet set to boggle ears in the 4 June 2010 of The Business Times by CHRISTOPHER LIM. Based on the headlines and small preview found in the digitised newspapers (the mainstream media of Singapore) in the National Library Board of Singapore, there might be enough to pass GNG. -- Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Found some sources online which are behind a subscription. I had since updated them into the article and the article should pass GNG. For anyone who likes to verify them, I will email the pdf copy as requested. (1) News article Not happy? They just make their own instruments - Article covering Ong and Electric Muse prior to their performance at the Singapore International Festival of Arts in 1999. (2) News article Going High Tech - Article covering Singaporean artists, covers Ong in about 3 paragraphs. (3) News article Shriek and sing - Article covering Ong before her 3 nights concert in Singapore in 2008. :Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Joanne Pedersen[edit]

Disappearance of Joanne Pedersen (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 this article says, there are 258 missing children in British Columbia. There was some coverage of Pedersen on the milestone anniversaries of her disappearance, but there is no evidence her disappearance was notable. As she was only ten at the time, no clear indication of notability prior. Star Mississippi 15:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and British Columbia. Star Mississippi 15:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. While missing children cases are always disturbing and sad, the media coverage of the subject's disappearance appears typical for missing-person's cases. Most of the coverage was, in fact, local. Also, the article reads like a press release issued by the police. Wikipedia is not a bulletin board for missing-person's cases. Plus, notability has not been shown and it, therefore, does not pass WP:BASIC and fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Benaud's Greatest XI[edit]

Richie Benaud's Greatest XI (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-encyclopedic article about a DVD. The article falls under WP:TRIVIA and the DVD fails WP:GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nityanand Misra[edit]

Nityanand Misra (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:N. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:52, 15 May 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. Star Mississippi 01:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jews for Israeli–Palestinian Peace[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jews for Israeli–Palestinian Peace (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 for the same reasons. 1st AfD was closed as no consensus.

Non-notable organization. Trivial coverage in both English and Swedish sources. Mooonswimmer 13:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Before reaching my conclusion I reviewed the argument in the recent AfD. I see it was closed as "no consensus" after being relisted twice. I also did some searching, found some sources and added them in. I think these additions demonstrate notability. CT55555 (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per argument of CT55555. I further would say the sources proposed by @User:Goldsztajn in the AfD discussion earlier this year are strong enough to indicate notability. Historyday01 (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per argument of CT55555. per sourcing. Per WP:GNG. BabbaQ (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I posted 13 sources at the last AfD, I do not think it necessary to post the same sources here. Passes the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the nominator. I see you describe yourself as a "super-duper-hyper-inclusionist". There seems to be very little appetite to delete this. Is it too early to suggest WP:SNOWBALL keep? CT55555 (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My philosophy has shifted a bit in that regard, and I'm not too keen on having the page deleted or anything. This is just a discussion to help me train my Wikipedia muscles a bit. I'll be sifting through @Goldsztajn's proposed sources sometime tomorrow. I'm not fluent in Swedish, so it'll take me a bit of time. Mooonswimmer 22:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mooonswimmer That's not a particularly encouraging reply nor grounds for an AfD. At the very least, it demonstrates a lack of WP:BEFORE on your part. I second CT55555's call for a SNOWBALL here and encourage you to withdraw the nomination. Take as much time as you want considering the sources, but clogging AfD with nominations for "training" purposes is somewhat disruptive. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've carried out the necessary preliminary checks.
Citation [1]. Encyclopedia, tertiary source. 1 sentence in a 2930 page selection. Doesn't help establish notability.
Citation [2] Goes more into depth. This works.
Citation [3] Doesn't help establish notability, for obvious reasons.
Citation [4] Interview, primary source. Doesn't count toward notability. The publication of the interview in a reputable source would be a strong indicator of possible notability. Where was this interview published? Mooonswimmer 23:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding #4, the citation states where it is published (palestinagrupperna i sverige). Please forgive me if my enthusiasm to participate in an AfD-for-training-purposes beyond convincing every other editor that this is good enough to keep. Combined with the very recent closed AfD, the justification for this one is on even thinner ice than I first realised. I really think you should reconsider withdrawing this one. CT55555 (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Safe to say it doesn't count toward notability, don't you agree? And see my comment below. Mooonswimmer 23:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think that's safe to say. I think there is an established consensus that the hypothesis that interviews don't count towards notability at AfD is not agreeable to the wikipedia community. So I would say that a source the includes interviews (some by people connected to the organisation, some from a Palestinian organisation that is collaborating with them) is that it's open for debate. It's not the New York Times, but it's not nothing either.
I would also emphasize that we're allowed to consider the overall citation situation, lots of small mentioned can add up to notability.
This isn't a clear cut case. But it does seem clearly enough for everyone here to say "keep" and even you said you don't want to delete it, so what are we debating here? CT55555 (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 42#Interviews As A Reliable Source For Core Notability Claims?
Consensus seems to be "keep" per GNG, or per Goldsztajn's proposed sources. If you could explicitly point out 3 reliable, independent, secondary sources, that'd be great. I've addressed Goldsztajn's sources in a comment below. Mooonswimmer 00:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't create this article. I'm a volunteer editor. I hope my work was a contributing factor in convincing the room. I again state my reluctance to participate further in your training of your "Wikipedia muscles", I think it's a bad basis for an AfD and not good use of my time. CT55555 (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m well aware of that. Thanks for your contributions to the article. And perhaps I could’ve worded that better. I usually stick to working on my own articles on Wikipedia. By “training my Wikipedia muscles”, I meant engaging in discussions so I could learn more about how to interpret and apply guidelines, and how to gauge what belongs on Wikipedia and what doesn’t. I didn’t randomly nominate this page for deletion so I could use the AfD as a playground. I did the preliminary checks after stumbling upon the article for a second time. I’m unable to see how it passes WP:GNG. Again, I’m not very active in AfD discussions, but I thought one was supposed to justify their vote. Not sure why it would be a waste of time to help an active editor understand how X article is valuable. I hope the others will eventually pitch in. Happy editing! Mooonswimmer 00:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From the previous AfD:

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] There's also a little bit more than 1/2 a page describing the organisation and its history here[9] and there was international coverage when the Israeli ambassador to Sweden vandalised an artwork by one of its members.[10][11][12][13]

References

  1. ^ Katz, Olle (29 August 2015). "Debattinlägg: "Riksdagsledamöter stöttar israeliska högerextremister"". SVT Nyheter (in Swedish).
  2. ^ "Svenska judar oeniga om vägen till fred i Israel". Svenska Dagbladet (in Swedish). 9 January 2003.
  3. ^ "DEBATT: Skilj på legitim Israelkritik och judehat" (in Swedish). Göteborgs-Posten. 11 October 2021.
  4. ^ "DEBATT: Palestiniernas folkrätt glöms bort i debatten". www.expressen.se (in Swedish). 3 Dec 2021.
  5. ^ "DN Debatt. "Oriktiga uppgifter om SodaStream"" (in Swedish). Dagens Nyheter. 19 July 2013.
  6. ^ "Judiskt stöd till Mana". Arbetaren (in Swedish). 29 January 2008.
  7. ^ "Judisk kritik mot Ebba Busch Thor". Dagen (in Swedish). 25 August 2016.
  8. ^ Helgesson, Fredrik (22 February 2017). "De vill lösa Israel-Palestinakonflikten utan våld". Sveriges Radio (in Swedish).
  9. ^ Landy, David (2011). Jewish Identity and Palestinian Rights : Diaspora Jewish Opposition to Israel. London: Zed Books. p. 113. ISBN 9781848139299.
  10. ^ "Israeli ambassador vandalises art exhibit". The Irish Times. 17 January 2004.
  11. ^ "Israeli Says Artwork Is 'Call to Kill'". Los Angeles Times. 18 January 2004.
  12. ^ Doneson, Daniel A (Autumn 2004). "Snow White, the Ambassador, and the Aesthetics of Death : Azure - Ideas for the Jewish Nation". azure.org.il.
  13. ^ "Sharon Praises Ambassador's Art Attack". DW.COM. Deutsche Welle. 18 January 2004.
[1] Am I being daft, or is the organization not even mentioned in the article?
[2] Paywall, I might be missing out on some in-depth coverage. Could you please share the relevant content?
[3] Not seeing any ample coverage, if any at all...
[4] "By Staffan Granér, Spokesperson Jews for Israeli-Palestinian Peace (YIPF)" Is this the non-trivial, independent coverage?
[5] Another paywall, would appreciate you sharing the relevant material.
[6], [7], [12] Perhaps you could explain how these count toward notability.
[8] Again, trivial mention. How does this help establish notability?
[10], [11], [13] Coverage is limited to briefly mentioning that Dror Feiler is involved with the group. Mooonswimmer 23:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You've ignored the discussion in Landry and cut off an important part of my comment from the first nomination: "40-year old organisation, its representatives have appeared regularly in the Swedish media, some examples from the last 20 years" (the first 8 refs). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Landry? Not sure what you mean. I'm trying to apply WP:CORP.
"A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
I addressed each source you've proposed, as well as the sources in the article. If you could point out at least 3 sources fulfilling the guidelines, then notability will be established and the Keep votes would be justified.
Any coverage besides trivial, passing mentions? Other than that, any major achievements, controversies, alliances? Perhaps some of these are mentioned in the paywalled articles. Mooonswimmer 13:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A misspelling: the Landy text, footnote 9. Picking apart sources this way misses the forest for the trees. NB: WP:NONPROFIT: Factors that have attracted widespread attention: The organization’s longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, or other factors specific to the organization should be considered to the extent that these factors have been reported by independent sources. This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A further (last) contribution: simple use of machine translation of the Swedish articles shows JfIPP has frequent appearances in the Swedish media. Two examples: "Christian Democrat leader Ebba Busch Thor will speak at an Israel-friendly demonstration in Stockholm this weekend. But the organization behind the demonstration is criticized by Jews for Israeli-Palestinian peace." or "Jews for Israeli-Palestinian peace lack a strategy!". Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:00, 19 May 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. North America1000 11:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jecheon AIDS scandal[edit]

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

Before it was stubified, this page was an unsourced attack page on the person the article author alleged (without eviidence) was the source of AIDS infections plus other embarrasing claims about his sexual habits. What remains says there were a lot of AIDS infections in a town in Korea. That is neither a scandal nor notable. I doubt we want to keep this, but if we do the entire history needs revision deletion as a WP:BLP violation. SpinningSpark 09:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Events. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, much of the supposed unsourced BLP violations were supported by the news reports listed in the article as external links for the previous 8 years, which a poor editor in 2020 entirely failed to make apparent in any way were then being turned into sources. However, and ironically, the text that has not been blanked for being a BLP violation, the assertion that "hundreds of people" have become infected, is in fact the main thing that is not supported by the news reports, which reported that at the time of the police investigation no further infections had been diagnosed. The verifiable material is, ironically, the stuff about the one person, and not even the later news reports cited in the Japanese Wikipedia's article (ja:堤川AIDS事件) say that there turned out to be any other people.

    The German Wikipedia has deleted both de:Jecheon AIDS-Verbrechen and de:Jechoeon AIDS Scandal, the Portuguese Wikipedia has deleted pt:Jecheon AIDS Escândalo, the Korean Wikipedia has deleted ko:제천 에이즈 사건, and even the Japanese Wikipedia doesn't say any more than that 1 person was sentenced for a crime. I suspect that the Japanese Wikipedia only still has this because no-one has really paid attention to the article since it was written there in 2012. It has been 11 years for this article. It's time that we stopped falsely claiming that 1 person committing a crime and no-one else turning out to have been involved or infected is a city-wide "scandal". We've already deleted Jindo AIDS scandal and Black Teacher Scandal which were similarly rubbish, written by some of the same editors. Per those, the other Wikipedias, and our various policies against manufacturing "scandals" in Wikipedia, delete.

    Uncle G (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • I did a machine translate on some of the ELs before nominating. Although there was indeed news stories about this persons activities and arrest, our article was off the scale with claims about this person stated as fact that even the Korean gutter press were somewhat more circumspect about. SpinningSpark 12:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not the case, alas. I looked at all of them, including the ones that were edited out of the article years ago. The press was right there alongside the article content, even publishing photographs of the person concerned inside a police station. They don't support the existence of any scandal or even the claim of anybody at all being infected, but they did actually say things about the person. That's the irony here. The only things that are taken from sources are the sort of things that are insufficient for having a biography, and the things that aren't supported by sources are the non-biographical things left in and the supposed central subject of the article, which apparently never existed. Uncle G (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unremarkable incident that is grossly exaggerated; WP:109PAPERS applies because there was no lasting coverage. Also a serious BLP violation because the article misrepresents the spread of AIDS. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:19, 15 May 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 03:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmut Uslu[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. All of the sources are news sources that contain the person's own explanations. The sources did not directly indicate the person. I suggest deleting the content. Kadı Message 23:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sports, Basketball, Football, and Turkey. Kadı Message 23:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 11:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He seems to have held some reasonably important positions, and I see an abundance of sources in Google News that mention him in the headline. I can't read Turkish, so it's hard for me to judge, but based on his job titles, I'm not convinced this is a lost cause. I'm curious what sources may exist from the 1980s. Zagalejo (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:56, 15 May 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 03:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Press[edit]

Iran Press (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:GNG. I couldn't find any reliable source talking about this news agency that's not related to the Iranian government. Ladsgroupoverleg 18:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Is the publication a know outlet in Iran? On the page history I noticed that it was tagged with Possible self promotion in user or draftspace and I noticed the same thing especially on section Website and Social media. DownTownRich (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ladsgroup Please ping WikiProject Iran for their input. DownTownRich (talk) 08:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't see enough notability KhinMoTi (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:56, 15 May 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 03:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plant Teacher[edit]

Plant Teacher (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 don't think this self-published book meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. It does not appear to have received multiple reviews in reliable, independent sources. The HuffPost review mentioned in the article is a "HuffPost Contributor" blog entry in which contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. It received several indie awards and honorable mentions, as listed in the article, but (in my opinion) none that are particularly notable enough. The author does not have a Wikipedia article so there is not a good redirect target. DanCherek (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. In ProQuest Newspapers I only find two press releases, which are not independent. No hits in google news. No hits in Booklist or Publishers Weekly, which is almost shocking; I consider showing up in PW as kind of a bare minimum notability threshold for a post-1990s book. I haven't looked at the awards but they must be pay-to-play for a book with so little coverage -- real awards would have shown up in the news searchers. The single Huffpost article wouldn't be enough for NBOOK even if it was RS, and it appears to be a blog post. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note that the critic mentioned in the article (Joel Hirst) appears to have links to the author, as he thanked her in the acknowledgements of his own book. Also note that Caroline Alethia is a pen name; Amazon and other sites identify her as Ellen Lee Alderton. pburka (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by G4. ✗plicit 03:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G4's Training Camp[edit]

G4's Training Camp (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 since 2009. Zero sourcing found. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to List of programs broadcast by G4 - I was unable to find any substantial coverage in reliable sources regarding the show. As it is listed on the main program list for the network already, a redirect there would probably be a good idea, though. Rorshacma (talk) 03:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:52, 15 May 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 11:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2019 CAFA U-16 Championship[edit]

2019 CAFA U-16 Championship (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)

Initial PROD statement was WP:NOTSTATS applies. Unable to find the independent sourcing required to pass WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT.

Contested with I have updated some references and I have noticed thats cafa website is official site of Central Asian Football Assassination. So its now no one raise any questions. I don't see any reasons why the editor said that. The article have created three years back.

Firstly, the tournament is organised by CAFA so the CAFA website is not an independent source, see WP:IS for more info. SPORTSEVENT requires news coverage should be extensive (e.g., outside of the week of its occurrence and in non-local newspapers) and that articles should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats which also overlaps with WP:NOTSTATS. A search per WP:BEFORE did not yield any coverage that qualifies for any of the above guidelines. Lastly, the article being three years old is a fallacious keep argument per WP:LONGTIME. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:52, 15 May 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. Technically ineligible but zero input and no one contesting the deletion. I see no reason to relist this a 3rd time when there's no indication that's going to change. Star Mississippi 01:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Grace[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:BAND. He's rubbed elbows with a few big names, but gained no notability from it. Current sourcing is all passing mentions, interviews, and other assorted cherrypicking. No better sources found. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:52, 15 May 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 14:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Malibu Beach House[edit]

MTV Malibu Beach House (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)

Shows were set here, but the house itself does not gain notability from that alone. Sources are very sparse at best, being mostly name-drops, primary, or 404. WP:BEFORE found only passing mentions, Wikipedia mirrors, and false positives. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete References are sparse, and what is there doesn't establish separate notability for the house. -fuzzy510 (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:52, 15 May 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. Sourcing has been identified and the n/cs were three years ago so not particularly relevant to this discussion, Star Mississippi 01:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Merit[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Death of Merit (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)

Films appears to fail WP:NFILM with not enough reviews to pass the guidelines, with none found in a BEFORE. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete already. This article has had two other chances, and both were closed as "no consensus" due to a complete lack of participation. It's clear that there is no interest in improvement, nor any resources to improve it with, so just put it out of its misery already and stop dragging this out any longer. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

References

  1. ^
  • Keep Definitely notable. There is plenty of discussion around the work in reliable sources in an independent way. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:03, 20 May 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 11:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ZenMarket[edit]

ZenMarket (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:NCORP. Jsfodness (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:VAGUEWAVE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:51, 15 May 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. Technically ineligible, but no one is contesting this deletion. Star Mississippi 01:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Spank[edit]

Midnight Spank (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)

Programming blocks are usually not notable on their own unless they receive extensive coverage, and that seems not to be the case here. It's not even mentioned on G4 (American TV network) so I see no point in a redirect. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:50, 15 May 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 11:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DJ B-Real[edit]

DJ B-Real (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. Jsfodness (talk) 03:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no indication it meets MUSICBIO. Soundcloud, Spotify, Apple itunes, and Discogs are not acceptable sources and without those we don't have much citations. Samanthany (talk) 00:34, 21 May 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. Star Mississippi 01:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Clark (host)[edit]

Patrick Clark (host) (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 host. Most of the shows he hosted are redlinks. Zero sources found. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:49, 1 May 2022 (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) 03:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:48, 15 May 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. Speedy deleted by Deb. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ravinder Singal[edit]

Ravinder Singal (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)

Tag team editing? See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DiggisMusic. This is a WP:ROTM police officer doing his job. Fails WP:BIO. Prime example of WP:NOTRESUME 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:43, 15 May 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Society Stores Supermarkets[edit]

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

small supermarket chain--fails NCORP, as the references are essentially interviews where the founder says whatever he wants to. The Forbes "article" is no different, and is by a "former contributor" DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete None of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability and I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 16:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In my humble opinion, the article is adequately referenced, after the changes I made today. Fsmatovu (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article describing a small supermarket group from its origin in purchase of an existing firm to its merger with another business owned by the same family. Leaving aside coverage which relates more to the founder and other family business, the text and references are announcement-based and fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:NCORP and no article here on Khetia Drapers to which it might be redirected. AllyD (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Trushar Khetia who is actually notable. There is coverage, but it is mainly local and concerns the owner. A redirect seems fine for now. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 03:11, 23 May 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 Electromagnetic field or an appropriate section thereof. Star Mississippi 01:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optical field[edit]

Optical field (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 definition is found in only one source. I contend that the source is not, in fact, providing a definition and the article author has misread it. This was triggered by a proposed merge discussion here. Futher discussion on the talk page of the article. Even if this was correct, it fails WP:DICDEF. SpinningSpark 07:27, 15 May 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 List of Crash Bandicoot characters#Coco Bandicoot. Consensus here appears to be that this secondary character lacks enough significant coverage to merit a separate article. The article remains available in the history if there is further verifiable information that should be merged. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coco Bandicoot[edit]

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

Subject lacks the significant coverage needed to justify notability; the article's reception section consists primarily of passing mentions and sources that don't pertain specifically to the subject's characterization, actor performance, and/or impact on popular culture. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted after undoing a non-admin early closure per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 May 15.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per nom. OceanHok (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: First of all, I beg to differ on the "passing mention" claims. Let's look over some of the sources I've added since restoring the article:
https://gamerant.com/crash-bandicoot-n-sane-trilogy-coco-playable/ - An entire article about her and her playable role in Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy.
https://www.thegamer.com/coco-bandicoots-design-in-crash-bandicoot-on-the-run-burns-my-eyes/ - Another article devoted to her, much longer than the previous one. This discusses her design.
https://www.thegamer.com/crash-bandicoot-coco-awesome-fan-art/ - Yet another article devoted to her. While it lists fan art of her, the article also discusses her personality in the games.
https://www.ign.com/articles/2017/06/15/e3-2017-why-coco-is-playable-in-crash-bandicoot-n-sane-trilogy - This discusses why she is playable in Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy.
https://www.ign.com/articles/2002/04/26/crash-bandicoot-the-wrath-of-cortex-review - Well, okay, I didn't really add this one, since it was already in there prior to the initial merge. But for a review of a game, it goes a bit into Coco beyond a passing mention.
Yes, some of the sources are passing mentions, but not all of them are. There could be more out there too. If find any, I'll add them in here.
I can understand why the article was initially merge back in 2011. There was barely any sources discussing Coco back then. However, more have since popped up, thanks to her playable roles in Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy and Crash Bandicoot 4: It's About Time, addressing the very reason it was merged in the first place. This passes WP:GNG and WP:INU, which do not require "the subject's characterization, actor performance, and/or impact on popular culture" in reliable sources. The main purpose of INU is to avoid WP:PLOT articles, and Coco does that through the creation and reception sections. This goes beyond Wikia quality.
Besides, Coco is clearly an important character in the Crash Bandicoot series, pretty much being the deuteragonist. I think the reader would benefit from Coco having her own article more than being confined to a list with a bunch of less important characters, which goes more into detail than a list article could. MoonJet (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first three sources are situational-bordering-on-unreliable, per WP:VG/S discussions. The first IGN article mentions her inclusion in the game and a little of how they worked her in, but says almost nothing about her character. The second IGN article features a single paragraph which basically says nothing but "Not as good as Crash". This is not significant in-depth coverage. This will be my only reply, as the long long long one-sided discussion at Amy Rose about very similar sources and passing mentions suggests that you won't change your stance. -- ferret (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first three are listed as situational sources, yes, but keep in mind that I'm only citing them for opinion pieces, not facts. Furthermore, it says Game Rant is fine to cite at non-BLP articles and for things that are not controversial claims. And the first TheGamer source was published after August 2020. WP:VG/S says "News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable." MoonJet (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As you've been told in prior discussions, a combination of passing mentions and fringe churnalism sources isn't a convincing case for notability. It's quite frankly getting a bit disruptive that we keep having to have these conversations because you're so obviously setting the standards far below where the community generally does. Sergecross73 msg me Sergecross73 msg me 12:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Calling something "churmalism" just strikes me as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You might consider them "churnalism," but others may not. If I'm setting the standards "far below where the community generally does," then maybe the problem is that the project is stricter than it should be. Never mind that fact the project literally states "Video game-related articles are considered notable by this project if they pass Wikipedia's general notability guidelines." on the project page. MoonJet (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:VG/S description of TheGamer: News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable. Several editorial staff have bylines highlighting their experience working with other reputable video game media outlets such as VG247. Content published prior to August 2020 should be handled with care, particularly listicles that have little news or reporting significance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I already discussed this in reply to Ferret, but:
1. I am citing them for opinion pieces, not facts. See WP:RSOPINION.
2. One of the sources from TheGamer I cited in here was published after August 2020. MoonJet (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Youre cherry-picking words. Churnalism is mine. But descriptors like iffy/fringe/not the best - these are pretty generally accepted. If a "The Gamer" source with a headline of "Look at the fan art" is among your strongest evidence for GNG satisfying sourcing, you're reallllllly reaching. I'm just surprised you're trying this so quickly after the community came to a clear consensus that your Amy Rose article had insufficient sourcing for its own article. This is the same sort of thing.Sergecross73 msg me 14:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does it really matter what the headline is? "Reaching?" No, I'm just gathering up some sources that discuss her that I've found, and TheGamer is acceptable for opinions, especially those posted after August 2020. Also consider the purpose behind GNG. If there's enough to write an article beyond a stub, it is presumably notable.
I know about the Amy Rose thing, but I was hoping to get a different result for Coco Bandicoot, really.
I plan to have another discussion on Amy Rose, by the way, as I've since found more sourcing for her since that consensus. MoonJet (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, this is your response when both the Amy Rose and this discussion (so far) are unanimously against you? You're going to get yourself into WP:IDHT trouble acting like this. Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- can we try to focus this discussion on Coco Bandicoot and not User:MoonJet or the potential of an Amy Rose article? (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying applies to here at this AFD all the same. Sergecross73 msg me 21:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prominent, sure; important, no. As far as gameplay goes, you could remove her playability outright and nothing would fundamentally change, and the games' marketing campaigns have clearly felt no need to prop her up to Crash's level. The series' central antagonist Cortex teaming up with Crash for one game was the primary marketing point of Crash Twinsanity, thus prodding reviewers toward analyzing Cortex as a character, but could the same ever have been said for Coco? As it stands, she's borderline window dressing presented only as an option for players who desperately need a playable character of the opposite sex, despite its lack of effect. And even then, she's not engaging enough as a personality for reviewers to devote the same kind of commentary they did to Cortex in Twinsanity. The games are not called Crash and Coco or Super Bandicoot Sibs, she's certainly not getting a headlining game any time soon, and fans aren't crazy enough about her to make so much as a ripple, so if she's not so essential, why would anyone pay any mind? Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom and others. While it initially looks like there are a lot of sources being included, this really seems to be a case of WP:REFBOMBing, as most of them are articles or reviews on the games she appeared in as a whole, that just mention her briefly as part of the review. Even most of the articles that are supposedly "about" her are simple statements of "Coco is playable in this game". As mentioned by Sergecross73 above, when the strongest actual source focused on the character is just a collection of fanart, that is not evidence that the character received enough significant coverage to justify an independent article, rather than being covered on the main character page for the franchise. Rorshacma (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't have full access to this source, but this seems to discuss Coco too: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/135485650000600404
If any of you have full access to this, please let me know. MoonJet (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just going by the headline, it looks like it's about female gamers and gaming culture as a whole, not specifically about the character. Access or no, this still doesn't advance your case. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to be "specifically" about the character, just that its significant coverage. (WP:GNG explicitly states "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.) But either way, I don't have access to that to tell if it is or not. MoonJet (talk) 04:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the study. Coco has less than two sentences of mention, in context of a child developer who wanted to use Coco as a playable character in her own Crash game (I.e. doing what later happened). The character itself is not discussed or even described beyond "appears in cutscenes". -- ferret (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom and others. Reyk YO! 04:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect North8000 (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Redirect – per the above discussion. Atsme 💬 📧 05:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just found a source that talks about Coco in detail and about her "gender bias" and that kind of stuff (https://www.nymgamer.com/?p=17216) It's a big page too. Going by their about page (https://www.nymgamer.com/?page_id=2), the place seems to be reliable. I'll tag some people in here that previously voted for some thoughts. @Atsme: @North8000: @Reyk: @Rorshacma:. MoonJet (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see how this is at all a reliable source. It's never been cited by other reputable gaming-related sources as far as I recall, or even within Wikipedia from what I can see. Just seems like another glorified blog. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Their about page says this and I quote: "Over the years, NYMGamer’s slate of writers has featured professors, writers, and professionals from a variety of industries, but the focus has always been the same: unpacking games from a feminist perspective, and having a good time while we’re at it.
    In 2015, we began planning a careful shift to a peer-reviewed middle-state publication offering a dedicated space to feminist games studies. Our first issue debuted in April 2018, and while we will continue to offer blog content, along with our regular podcast, the journal aims to create space for peer-reviewed articles on feminist games scholarship, including textual engagement, criticism, theory, and research, as well as multimedia presentations, as well as critical book and game reviews." MoonJet (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Such a statement doesn't mean anything unless it cites specifics, and given how little mention this site has gotten from others, I'm not convinced that these "professors, writers, and professionals" could have been all that credible or influential. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, it actually has been cited by Game Informer, another reputable gaming source. See here: https://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2015/08/23/analysis-two-reasons-why-playable-female-characters-are-here-to-stay.aspx MoonJet (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A single point on a graph doesn't lend prestige. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But the point is, MoonJet demonstrated that at least one reliable source has cited them for their research, in response to a sweeping claim that there is none who do. Their first peer-reviewed publication in 2018 had the involvement of Adrienne Shaw, a published academic who researches video games. I also found two other Wikipedia pages which have cited NYM Gamer as sources: Fran (Final Fantasy), a GA, and Zoë Quinn. I understand why other editors would still consider the sigcov threshold to not be met because we don't have enough sources, but you have not provided a convincing argument that we should disregard this source entirely due to alleged unreliability other then mere opinion. Haleth (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This cherry picking of pings is concerning. I actually believe this could potentially be treated as a reliable source, but even then, that makes it the only in-depth source uncovered so far, so doesn't change the status quo. Additionally, the particular author does not appear on the staff page, instead appearing to be a guest or freelance submission, which might kick out the reliableness. Unfortunately the site does not clearly label their blog content half, which makes it difficult to vet. -- ferret (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, there's TheGamer and GameRant sources too. Even if you want to discount the fan art article, there's still the other two. Though, I know you are leery on those due to them being situational sources, but I like I mentioned, they are fine for non-BLPs and non-exceptional claims, especially for opinion pieces.
    Anyway, while the author is not on the staff page, it doesn't look like a site where just anyone can write for. Also, her Linkedin page says she has experience in Purdue University, which is where the top editors of that site are from. MoonJet (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - replying to ping. Many game characters arguably still reside in a niche market or they may be considered subordinates to a globally notable and highly popular main character, as is the case with Coco as demonstrated here. I must add that siblings of notable game characters do not automatically inherit that notability, and this is such a case. I'm not saying that all game characters must reach the level of global notability as did Pac-Man and Mario Bros. but they must reach the minimum requirements set forth in WP:GNG. At this time, Coco fails to meet those requirements. Perhaps that will change over time, but right now we have to consider NOTCRYSTALBALL, and until N is met, a redirect is the way to go. Atsme 💬 📧 13:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme:True, notability is not inherented. But you don't you think the NYM Gamer, TheGamer (which there's two of) and GameRant sources add up the minimal notability guidelines? Altogether, that's at least four sources of significant coverage (arguably more than that), more than the recommended mininum of three sources. Well, in Wikipedia's terms, non-trivial. Short doesn't necessarily equal trivial, as this page says. We should also consider why notability is a thing. I would argue there's easily enough here to write an encyclopedic article beyond a stub. MoonJet (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MJ - NYM Gamer began as a blog, but their "About" section states: In 2015, we began planning a careful shift to a peer-reviewed middle-state publication offering a dedicated space to feminist games studies. Then when you read Editors and Staff, we're not talking about a peer reviewed scientific journal, ok? You might say it's a bit of an advocacy or maybe not - either way, it's not quite what they paint themselves to be. Now look at The Gamer - editor-in-chief Stacey Henley is arguably famous but fame is not the same thing as notability. What are her encyclopedic/academic credentials? She appears to be an advocate for women's rights - we could certainly use her talents on WP - but does the editorial staff at The Gamer really qualify as experts for inclusion of academic/encyclopedic content relative to the study of feminism? The sources are not exactly what WP would consider scientific, academic in the same light as high quality WP:MEDRS. I shudder to think WP is going to be the home of every game character that's trending now because they were mentioned or written about in those 4 sources - which of course have their own agendas relative to the gaming industry; consider WP:NTEMP. I have no doubt that the editorial staff does their best to maintain credibility despite using outlets like Reddit, Twitter, YouTube, etc in their pool of sources. To keep things in perspective, we're talking about video games; technology comes and goes with the wind. Where does their money come from? Are they truly independent? I think those are questions that need closer study. Atsme 💬 📧 21:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, current consensus at WP:VG/RS is that TheGamer is reliable; though content posted before August 2020 is to be approached with caution. I mean, there's so many characters that do not have an article. Looking at the Crash series, the only other characters with articles are Crash himself and Dr. Cortex. It certainly wouldn't hurt for Coco to have one too.
Also, keep in mind I'm not citing TheGamer as academic source. It's NYM Gamer I'm citing as an academic source. MoonJet (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to correct you there. NYM Gamer is a website run by an editorial board, with some of its members being published academics (e.g. Mia Consalvo and Adrienne Shaw) or professional critics (Yussef Cole). The article you cited is a blog-style article, which is essentially on the same tier as typical features published by Kotaku and Polygon. It clearly has been through an editorial process, but it is not an academic source just because the editors in question may be academics. The actual academic journal itself is here, of which only two issues have been published at the time of writing. Haleth (talk) 09:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. NYM Gamer is probably the best source that has turned up in this discussion for the topic to date.The employment status of the article's author is not really relevant as long as the website or publication that publishes it demonstrates that it has an editorial apparatus in place where submitted articles must be approved by editors prior to publication. As for format, websites like Kotaku and Polygon are special interest blogs run by professional staff writers and editors. I understand why consensus for the article to be redirected isn't inclined to change because there aren't more sources of this calibre, but I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt that the article can still be improved by sources yet to be discovered or cited. When the NYM Gamer source is assessed in conjunction with the quoted articles from TheGamer and GameRant, there is enough coverage to write a short article in my view. PS: MoonJet should have pinged all of the other editors who were involved in the discussion as well, like OceanHok, Zxcvbnm and Sergecross73. Haleth (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sure I wasn't pinged because he knows this wouldn't move the needle for me. Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I was pinged, and it does not move the needle for me either. I still fully advocate Redirecting and covering the character on the main character list for the series. Rorshacma (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was under the assumption certain editors were watching this discussion as it was. It seems Cat's Tuxedo and Ferret has anyway. I must note that I wasn't for sure whether it would needle Sergecross' stance or not. Though, to be fair, maybe I should have pinged everyone in here.
Also, I don't know if this is reliable (though, they seem to be affiliated with Siliconera and Destructoid) but this source lists Coco among the 10 "great" female characters in video games: https://www.pcinvasion.com/10-great-female-video-game-characters/
They give explanation, and comments on her levels in Crash 3: Warped and the politicism around her. On its own, I agree that it wouldn't establish notability for her, but I do think it establishes notability for her even more so with the NYM Gamer, TheGamer and GameRant sources than without that source. After all, we must also consider the principles on why notability is a thing, like I said above. MoonJet (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. This isn't that complicated. "King's redesign of Coco Bandicoot for Crash Bandicoot: On The Run burned my eyes more than shampoo being squirted into them. It makes you scream bloody murder because someone poured some water into the bottle and mixed it up without your knowledge ..." This is not a suitable source for an encyclopedia. The video game space has so many mainstream news sources that cover so many aspects of this major franchise yet our discussion above stretches far into unreliable and opinion sources. It's clear that this character is not covered widely as independent from the ensemble of other characters in the series. So cover it in the ensemble article: List of Crash Bandicoot characters#Coco Bandicoot. czar 14:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of edible disasters[edit]

List of edible disasters (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 was so excited to see the title of this page, but ultimately I can't find sufficient coverage indicating "edible disasters" is a thing (my search indicates that combination of word tends to refer to disasters cooking attempts/meals). i.e. it fails WP:GNG/WP:LISTN. The sources cited are all about the individual events, not about the grouping. Inclusion criteria seems to be not anything related to edibility but just involving food. We already have list of non-water floods, which includes many of these items (that has sourcing issues, too, but I haven't explored whether it should be deleted). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Events, and Lists. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. These disasters weren't "edible"; they may have involved food or drink in some way, but some of them killed people. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of vaguely related topics, probably made because someone thought it was funny. Dronebogus (talk) 06:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Moreover, 'edible disaster' is not a notable (or oft-used) term. Llwyld (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As there are no reliable sources actually discussing or grouping these, or similar incidents, together under the concept of "edible disasters", the list not only fails WP:LISTN but the concept behind it appears to be WP:OR. Rorshacma (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no evidence that this is a coherent topic. It is clearly misnamed. A sugar refinery explording or a distellery burning down does not create edible things, it creates burning waste that kills and destroys.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have started Category:Food processing disasters as a partial replacement, to fit in with industrial accidents from other industries.--Pharos (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is much better than this flippant nonsense page. Dronebogus (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it may be worth keeping the page and changing the name and content to reflect Category:Food processing disasters Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 00:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While hilariously titled, "edible disasters" isn't a normally used phrase (nor is it even clear as to what it means) and it's difficult to imagine any rationale someone would have for using such a list.— Preceding unsigned comment added by A MINOTAUR (talk • contribs) 20:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow delete Per WP:SNOW Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 02:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has to have come from the discussion at User talk:Drmies/Archive 140#VGP05 (q.v.). Uncle G (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It came from a discussion on Fringe theories noticeboard. idk where it got archived to Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 01:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to say we should keep this, as I deeply love the name, which I proposed at FTN, so I have a conflict of interest. There is, however, some coverage in RS for these types of groupings. Bon Appetit and Smithsonian magazine for instance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The new title of food processing disaster makes it more serious, and food processing disasters are notable, you can find plenty of google results about things like disasters at food processing facilities Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 01:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Still very unorganized, and is not commonly used enough. Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 02:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Both this article and List of non-water floods are redundant to List of industrial disasters#Food industry. Food-related disasters are neither numerous enough nor notable enough to warrant splitting to a separate article. Dan from A.P. (talk) 05:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The other article isn’t redundant but it’s also clearly a case of “category masquerading as list”. Dronebogus (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect to List of industrial disasters#Food industry. While sources and summaries are disappointingly absent from some of these entries, the one entry with a summary (the Wild Turkey Distillery fire) is well-written and presents an adequate case for the event's notability. However, I am concerned that the contributing editor copied the text from the Wild Turkey (bourbon) article (§ History) without proper attribution. Nevertheless, I do believe in the potential that if this article were to remain standing (which I acknowledge is not likely at this point), then it could be expanded with reliable sources relevant to each entry—or perhaps the relevant section of the aforementioned bold-linked article could be expanded with such information instead. Regardless of this list's merits as a standalone article, its renamed title ("List of food processing disasters") is a valid search term. Perhaps the "edible disasters" redirect which resulted from the move could be deleted as a less-likely search term, but under its new title, I see no reason to delete this article when redirecting would be a plausible alternative. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 21:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Eat I mean deleat. Seems better served via a category. While that doesn't preclude the existence of a list, it seems to be the better of the two in this case. Star Mississippi 02:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Only two ones that aren't covered by articles are The Wild Turkey Distillery Fire[1][2][3][4] and 2013 Brunost blaze[5][6][7][8] so it is probably best to make those two articles and add them to the category instead Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 16:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Suckow, Alex (2021-05-18). "ARCHIVES: In May 2000, fire at Wild Turkey filled Kentucky air with burning bourbon". WLKY. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  2. ^ "Wild Turkey warehouse fire mixes whiskey and water in Kentucky". Baltimore Sun. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  3. ^ "Wild Turkey Warehouse Burns". AP NEWS. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  4. ^ "Bourbon And Smoke". www.cbsnews.com. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  5. ^ Locker, Melissa (2013-01-23). "Giant Goat Cheese Fire Shuts Down Norway Tunnel". Time. ISSN 0040-781X. Retrieved 2022-05-09.
  6. ^ published, Marc Lallanilla (2013-01-24). "Cheese Fire Destroys Tunnel". livescience.com. Retrieved 2022-05-09.
  7. ^ "Norway goat cheese fire closes tunnel". BBC News. 2013-01-22. Retrieved 2022-05-09.
  8. ^ Davies, Alex. "A Truck Carrying Goat Cheese Caught On Fire, Burned For Five Days, And Shut Down A Tunnel". Business Insider. Retrieved 2022-05-09.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the renaming; editors encouraged to comment on whether this adds to coherency of the list.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:23, 15 May 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 11:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MK-Ultra (band)[edit]

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

Currently fails WP:BAND. Schierbecker (talk) 06:13, 15 May 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_May_15&oldid=1089347781"