Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 13	August 15 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Metagaming (disambiguation)[edit]

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

After the merge of the page specifically about roleplaying, this disambiguation page is now pointless. At best it is WP:ONEOTHER and can be dealt with by a hatnote, but I question if it even rises to that level. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Disambiguations. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The page is under the wrong name as it stands, so it would need to be moved to Metagame (disambiguation), but as nom says WP:ONEOTHER applies at the moment. A month ago some of us started looking at this set of pages in regards to another deletion discussion, and found a lot to clean up. The discussion got...sidetracked. Let's let the cleanup continue first before trying to salvage an unneeded disambig. —siro χ o 00:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Serves zero purpose. NegativeMP1 (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a several-times contributor to this page, I agree it is no longer necessary. Llew Mawr (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While !vote count is close, there has been no policy-based rebuttal regarding the lack of significant coverage. Arguments pointing to the content of Wikipedia articles or internal Wikipedia searches are of zero merit. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EMY Africa Awards[edit]

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

This isn't going to be easy, but I do have the feeling it will be essential to avoid a flood of Ghanaian COI/UPE BLPs. This 'award' is a self-fueling entity, a business venture that publishes a magazine on the back of the award. On top of this core Awards article, we now have new articles being created about 2021 awards winners, 2022 awards winners etc etc. There is no evidence of notability to the awards, no independent oversight or committee and no entity backing them other than the commercial company that runs them for profit. It all has to go. The complete lack of SIGCOV from RS helps make that case. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Ghana. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 〜 Festucalex • talk 08:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created this particular article. I have come to realization that there has been creation of 2021, 2022 awards lists etc. There needs to be a clean up and not a complete overhaul of the whole awards. Over the years, the awards has grown to one the Ghanaian top and notable awards. It has awarded and honoured several notable people in Ghana. It has been covered by all the top news outlets in Ghana also. I would repeat again that it is not about taking the whole award scheme away, I believe it is needs to be cleaned-up. Ampimd (talk) 08:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a very notable scheme with significant coverage in reliable media Siagoddess (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's come up in AfD where individuals have won this "award". Does appear to be self-promotional. I couldn't find much discussing it. I'd ask the Wiki Africa taskforce for assistance perhaps. Oaktree b (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A quick search results on Wikipedia as shown here shows the notability of the award scheme as referenced by several notable Africans. Siagoddess (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete as we have all these pages I really don't know whether we should delete o keep them all: 2019 EMY Africa Awards, 2021 EMY Africa Awards, List of winners of EMY Africa Awards, 2016 EMY Africa Awards, 2017 EMY Africa Awards, 2018 EMY Africa Awards, 2019 EMY Africa Awards, 2020 EMY Africa Awards. If this page is deleted, the remaining ones may lose their relevance. 多少战场龙 (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This looks like clear self-promotion to me. Rhombus (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rhombus, can you explain why you tag this article as "self-promotion" ? Siagoddess (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3rd and final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 23:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Américo. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Así Es (Américo album)[edit]

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

Seems Non-notable Charsaddian (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Charsaddian (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Américo: Found no additional coverage. Sources on es:Así es (álbum de Américo) are no good (one's just a discography list and the other's an artist bio with only a passing mention of this album). Note that I don't have access to any Chile/Latin America-specific archives, assuming they exist, so there could be plenty of coverage that just isn't archived where I can see it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Potential keep I am fairly sure this album did receive press coverage to make it worthy enough of an article, but the problem is that these sources are offline and may only be available at Chile's National Library. This album contains probably Americo's most famous song "El embrujo" (the cover of a Peruvian song), and although it was released in 2008, I remember it received some heavy airplay still by 2012. This article on La Tercera only makes a passing mention of "Asi es". "Sus fans suelen seguirlo a todo el país y se saben de memoria su primer disco como solista Américo, Así Es, donde destaca "El Embrujo", su gran éxito" (His fans often track him down all over the country and have memorized his first solo album, Así es, which features his greatest hit "El embrujo"). Another potential source is El Mercurio, but for some time even its search function is behind a paywall I can no longer access it (I used to be a subscriber). This 2016 article also by La Tercera [1] says: "mpartirTras aquel exitoso tándem de discos de Américo, Así es (2008) y A morir (2008), que incluyen los mayores hit del ariqueño -El embrujo, Te vas, o Que levante la mano-, vino el premio mayor: un aplaudido show en Festival de Viña 2010." (After the successful albums of Americo, Así es (2008) and A morir (2008), which include the greatest hits of the Arica man -"El embrujo", "Te vas" or "Que levante la mano"- came his greatest award: a show at Viña del Mar Song Festival 2010). This bio of Americo at Música Popular reads: "En 2007 grabó Así es, donde figuran los singles “El embrujo” (del autor peruano Estanis Mogollón, una de las más escuchadas de ese año) y “Traicionera”, ambos con gran rotación en radios tropicales. [...] Fue en 2008, tras ese éxito reciente de Así es, cuando pasó de ser de una figura a un fenómeno tropical" (In 2007 he recorded Así es, featuring singles "El embrujo" (by Peruvian songwriter Estanis Mogollón, one of the most listened-to songs that year) and "Traicionera", both on heavy rotation at tropical radio stations. [...] It was in 2008, after that recent success of Así es, when [Americo] went from becoming a tropical figure to a phenomenon). --Bedivere (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Américo. I don't necessarily disagree that offline/foreign-language sources may be out there, but even if this album is notable, we have the editorial discretion to cover it "as part of a larger page about a broader topic", as WP:NOPAGE puts it. That's what makes the most sense in this case: we can easily redirect to the singer's article without a substantive loss of information, and the alternative – what NOPAGE describes as "a permanent stub" – isn't desirable for editors or readers. Obviously this calculus would change if someone were actually able to dig up the offline/foreign-language sources discussed above, so if that happens (unlikely but possible), the editor shouldn't hesitate to un-redirect the article and add the additional content. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3rd and final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Lazaroo-Hood[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman. No WP:SIGCOV. Uhooep (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting for the record that this page was "moved" by Rusty Soto from the draft space via copy/paste (diff). While I have no opinion on the page itself (as I have not looked back) re-draftification may be more appropriate given the unilateral non-AFC manner in which this was moved to the Article space. Primefac (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Promo. Most coverage of the dapper-looking fellow is about the Clear Water group, I'd perhaps redirect there. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b:, FYI, looks like Clear Water is heading the way of deletion as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ANYBIO. My own WP:BEFORE has returned only a small number of ROTM pieces in which the subject is mentioned in articles/coverage which are substantively about something else. The same thing is evident in the sources within the article (effectively all of which are news/press-releases about the subject's company or the events that company sponsors). While a redirect might sometimes be appropriate, I personally question whether the company is notable either. That all of these related articles (the subject here, his company, and the event his company sponsors) were created by the same (SPA/PAID/COI?) contributor does very little to help... Guliolopez (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3rd and final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Standard professional profile. If sources are found, delete per TNT. I do not think redirect is appropriate for such blatant NPOV violation, as even WP:ATD suggests NPOV is a valid reason for deletion at AFD. —siro χ o 03:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some passing mentions exists, but I don't see full articles about him.Upper Deck Guy (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zubin Dowlaty[edit]

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

Non-notable. No WP:SIGCOV. Uhooep (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting for the record that this page was "moved" by Rusty Soto from the draft space via copy/paste (diff). While I have no opinion on the page itself (as I have not looked back) re-draftification may be more appropriate given the unilateral non-AFC manner in which this was moved to the Article space. Primefac (talk) 13:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's no WP:GNG coverage of him, and it's written promotionally. No problems if anyone wants to move it back to draftspace if they think they can do better. SportingFlyer T·C 15:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3rd and final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see full articles about him. Some of the citations are books that he wrote and others primary.Upper Deck Guy (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Mord[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NBOOK, as the 5+ years old note also says. Cswiki has no sources, just a brief plot summary. FromCzech (talk) 08:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 08:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article already seems to have a review from a museum website. Here's another review [2] Here's something from the Czeck literary center [3] There's a bit of coverage in an article in Spanish language from Notimex [4]. This should readily pass WP:NBOOK. —siro χ o 10:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much experience with book pages and maybe I was too hasty with the deletion nomination, but as it stands the page is in a desperate state and useless. It currently contains less information than the author's page and replacing it with a redirect would be more appropriate; or if it is to remain, it should be draftified. FromCzech (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Miloš Urban. I'm pretty certain someone who knew where to look could write a properly sourced article about this book itself, but as it's so short, probably better to redirect to the author's page until that day comes. Jdcooper (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3rd and final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miloš Urban. Mccapra (talk) 00:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources demonstrating notability. Additionally, Deletion is not cleanup. It can also be draftified or tagged for improvement. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If not change to redirect, draftify would be reasonable compromise. FromCzech (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Omobude[edit]

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

Non-notable religious person. No sourcing in the article, none found in RS either. Oaktree b (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Nigeria. Oaktree b (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All coverage is either interviews or PR pieces. Oaktree b (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Per GNG as there are plenty of sources. E.g. [5], [6], [7]. Central and Adams (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note - there appears to be a AFC submission that Whinyharedy arbitrarily redirected to this page. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 15:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are press releases, what PFN states, interviews with Omobude or what he states so are not independent. I also note the draft was declined four times prior to it being copied into mainspace. S0091 (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep Per creator and notability. Dannyjade (talk) 7:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)~~ sock strike Girth Summit _(blether) 10:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Note this is the article's creator. S0091 (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 17:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is among the several non-notable articles created by Dannyjide. Every article is either paid for or an interview. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable independent coverage. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Evangelical Christianity, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Charismatic Christianity. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Former President of the Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria, a big deal. This doesn't mean he's some sort of Pope of Nigerian Pentecostalism - instead, he was the head of the council of most of the Pentecostal denominations and megachurches.^[1]^[2]

As a prominent Pentecostal voice, his name comes up in multiple journals on either new African Pentecostal movements or Nigerian politics - Google Scholar results (note: he's not an academic and these aren't his papers; he's in the papers)

Over 100 Google News articles returned.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Katsaura, Obvious (May 2023). "Architecturations of Pentecostal Power: Contribution to a Sociology of Pentecostal Auditoriums". Space and Culture. 26 (2): 268–278. doi:10.1177/12063312221130241. ISSN 1206-3312. Retrieved 5 August 2023.
^ Omorogbe, Paul (3 March 2021). "Bishop Wale Oke emerges new PFN president". Nigerian Tribune. Retrieved 5 August 2023.

@A. B. the sources you cited are only brief mentions and/or statements by him or PFN. I took a look at the first page of the Google News results and a handful of the Google Scholar results but seeing the same. I also searched ProQuest which had 370+ hits and checked dozens. It's clear he is influential but I haven't found independent secondary in-depth coverage about him. I am happy to reconsider if I am missing something or other sources are presented (ping me). S0091 (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as according to the above sources he has scholarly journals coverage including 10 pages in one, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per G5. The article's author is a sock of David Eribe, an LTA spammer. If this discussion were not already underway I would have implemented a speedy deletion myself, but since others have taken time to review the content and sources I will merely contribute this !vote. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ordinarily, I'd relist this discussion in hopes of getting more opinions but no editor has participated here since the last relisting so I'll close it now as No consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Skallas[edit]

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

Non notable per WP:NAUTHOUR - books are self published and coverage is minimal, and not independent. Page was created following coverage of the subject and his lifestyle teaching in several notable papers including New York Times, The independent and The Spectator. However, reading the articles shows the same text. For instance "Paul Skallas, a 36-year-old technology lawyer and writer, has today picked up antiquity’s torch. He’s an evangelist for wisdom derived from the distant past: like, say, skip the mouthwash." is in both New York Times and Independent. Possibly also in the Spectator but it is paywalled. The coverage is therefore clearly written off a press release, and as such fails in the Independent test and cannot be used for GNG. Thus there is no significant independent coverage in reliable secondary sources and subject fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NAUTHOR Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have access to the Spectator. Only two sentences are about Skallas, not SIGCOV. The NYT and Independent pieces with identical text were written by the same guy (self-plagiarism). Splice is non-RS, and Protocol (which I'm familiar with) can be so-so. Several writers have shown screenshot evidence of repeated plagiarism by Skallas. Given that these pieces all focus on his online writings, you'd think that a piece of in-depth, neutral coverage would mention that. But none of them do, except Protocol, which does so in passing (and frames it as an "accusation" without evaluating its merits, despite the evidence being public). Regardless of what we think of the general reliability of the sources, these specific sources aren't sufficient to write a proper, neutral, non-puff piece article (WP:RSCONTEXT). We shouldn't apply WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV too mechanistically. Sometimes, coverage can be superficial (non-SIGCOV) regardless of word count. DFlhb (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (note: changed to Speedy Keep below) - Skallas received a full article profile in The New York Times, the paper of record. He's also heavily featured in an article on Protocol, the tech-focused imprint of Politico, which is listed on Wikipedia as a a generally reliable perennial source. These two citations alone clearly meet the bar of WP:GNG. PK-WIKI (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times article is addressed in the nom. statement. Both are addressed by DFIhb. WP:GNG requires multiple significant independent reliable secondary sources, so these two alone would not be enough to meet the bar. That is a misunderstanding of GNG. Also noting, for the record, that you are the page creator. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination statement that the "coverage is therefore clearly written off a press release" fails to notice that the New York Times article and article in The Independent were written by the same author. Any shared text between the two says nothing about the WP:INDEPENDENCE of the source. I did not list both of those articles in my keep support, as GNG states "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability", but the full profile article published in the New York Times must be considered for the subject's notability. PK-WIKI (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protocol isn't POLITICO [...] We're a standalone company, with our own editorial and business teams (link); they don't inherit Politico's reliability.

The NYT piece is a mere lightly-editorialized interview; it's primary (see footnote (d) of WP:NOR) and not independent, and doesn't count towards GNG. The Protocol piece intersperses an interview with editorial commentary; editorial commentary is independent, but is a primary source for the author's views (see WP:NEWSORG, part of WP:RS), not secondary.

Your reasoning (outlet is generally reliable --> GNG is met) only addresses presumed notability, not the other criteria. I don't think we have any source that meets GNG.

Reasoning from first principles: we shouldn't base an article exclusively on magazine-style profiles, because they share many traits with human interest stories (like focusing primarily on a single aspect, and packaging it into a storytelling narrative, as both the NYT and Protocol pieces do). NPOV can't be met if such sources are the sole basis for an article's notability. DFlhb (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above. Death Editor 2 (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Speedy Keep per clause 3 "The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided."

This AFD nomination is based entirely upon the similarities between the New York Times piece and the article in The Independent. Because of this similarity, the nominator states "The coverage is therefore clearly written off a press release, and as such fails in the Independent test and cannot be used for GNG."

The nomination fails to notice that the two pieces were written by the same author and that the Independent article ends with the words "This article originally appeared in The New York Times". The articles were clearly not written off a press release (which would be quite a claim against The New York Times...).

The nomination provides no other deletion rationale. The nomination is completely erroneous and the article should be speedily kept. The nuanced discussion of the sources in replies here should be brought to a different AFD, if desired.

PK-WIKI (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But a deletion rationale is given. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Additional deletion rationale has also been added by another editor. This is clearly not eligible under speedy. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A completely erroneous deletion rationale is given in the nomination. Additional deletion rationale subsequently added in comment threads is irrelevant to the AFD nomination being erroneous. PK-WIKI (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Mostly because the article right now reads like a short promotional blurb instead of an encyclopedic article. Not entirely sure it meets GNG, but I would consider the NYT and Protocol articles independent coverage. RoseCherry64 (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep came across this when closing AfDs and decided to vote: the nomination is essentially claiming that the New York Times, arguably the most credible journalistic source in the world, is republishing marketing material? That is the single most ridiculous deletion rationale I have ever read, and I'm usually the first to call it out. The reason The Independent and NYT piece are similar is because they were written by the same author. Yes, that probably means they aren't independent sources given that the author was the same and they are published in the same time period, but it also means that two major international papers have found it acceptable to publish said article. That gives it strength not weakens it.
Was able to view The Spectator bit. Combined with the Protocol one there is sufficient independent coverage in addition to the NYT source, which is of the highest quality and quite obviously not based on a press release. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not sure the NYT is "the most credible journalistic source" but certainly the refs provided on the article seem to support notability. The duplicate coverage is because those refs share the same author as mentioned above. - Indefensible (talk) 04:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laroi[edit]

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

I went ahead and PRODed it a while back, and the tag was removed without explanation after a few days. The page of the user who did so would suggest that they may not be entirely neutral about article deletion, especially when it comes to topics that have received little coverage in English media (they were recently blocked for their polemical comments about deletion discussions). This village is only mentioned (that I can find) in a few user generated sources. Its name in Punjabi is not given in any of them, which leaves me unable to attempt to find non-English sources (Wikipedia also does not have a non-English article on it). As much as I dislike further lessening our coverage of the world outside of the Anglosphere, this article is too much of a mess to simply leave in the encyclopedia. Deletion is, of course, not cleanup, but without any reliable sources whatsoever, there is no cleanup that can be done. An anonymous username, not my real name 17:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Punjab. An anonymous username, not my real name 17:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. –dlthewave ☎ 21:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and pin down the exact location. A Google satellite image clearly indicates a town. Actually, 2 towns 850m apart. Either town is big enough to be notable. The bigger one is Laroi (ਲਾਰੋਈ), the other is Laroya (ਲਾਰੋਆ). The coordinates (31°34′N 75°38′E) given in our article locate to Laroya, not Laroi. Is Google Maps wrong or our article? I'd say 50-50 either way. This is especially true given transliteration issues between the English and Punjabi languages and between the Latin and Gurmukhi (ਗੁਰਮੁਖੀ) scripts. This issue arises sometimes in Indian geography AfDs.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian Census handbook for Punjab lists two villages named Laroya on the huge village data spreadsheet.[8] The Laroya, Punjab we have an article for is in another part of Punjab. The one at our Laroi article's coordinates is in the town of Bhogpur in the Jalandhar district. The population was 996 in 2011. There's no Laroi listed in the Punjab census data.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, and start looking for a merger target (right now I'm thinking Nadaun, Himachal Pradesh). Completely unreferenced in the article page itself, and if this isn't in Indian language Wikipedias, do we even include it? That being said, this article could be improved, and it could fulfill GNG, but so far, based on it only existing in Maps apps and the Weather Channel outside of Wikipedia, it should be deleted and/or merged. Based on the popularity of The Kid Laroi, it's best to create a disambiguation page for Laroi if the page is kept, with a second entry saying "Laroi, a suburb of Nadaun, Himachal Pradesh". InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion here is divided. Is there some sentiment to Merge some content or at least Redirect this page to another target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would be open to a merger of article contents, but with it being COMPLETELY unreferenced, and AB's comment from above showing that there is no Laroi which exists at all in Indian Census Data, I have doubts. Since this hasn't met WP:HEY, I'm still going to lean towards Delete. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whether or not this should be Redirected to Arena Rock Recording Company can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Next Year: A Brooklyn-Based Compilation[edit]

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

WP:NALBUM says : "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence." which this one is lacking. The article was created and populated by Mcmeatm which appears to be a public relations effort accouont of Arena Rock Recording Co. based on edit history.

Existance is not a valid reason on its own to have a product (such as an album). An album is not inherently notable Graywalls (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Graywalls (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the link to the AllMusic review and found this interview piece from Time Out New York, but that's not enough to convince me. Redirect to Arena Rock Recording Company; there might be enough between the two sources to make a small section on that page if anyone wants to, but there's nothing here to merge. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment as requested by Liz in relist: interview with those involved in the article subject don't count towards notability. Graywalls (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The target you're suggesting is of highly questionable notability that may not meet WP:NCORP which is being considered for deletion also Graywalls (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, given the AllMusic review and some more stuff I think we can meet WP:GNG:
1. 216 word review in NYT via proquest: [9],
2. Pitchfork has about 80 words of sigcov in this article [10], published a few years after the album, which contextualizes the album a bit. A key bit of verifiable info It was bloated with 42 tracks of NYC's finest-- including Interpol, the Walkmen, and French Kicks... Their debuts would all come within a year of the compilation's release.
3. ~80 word review in Entertainment Weekly: [11].
4. There's also a couple capsule-style reviews that only have a sentence or two of SIGCOV but could aid in the article. A few words of coverage here [12], a bit from [13]

—siro χ o 04:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just for all's review: NYT piece they mentioned above is at: https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/27/arts/critic-s-choice-pop-cd-s-sounds-that-affirm-new-york-s-strength.html Graywalls (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice to see some assessment of the sources brought up in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references noted above, along with AMG's review, are enough to pass muster. This product is notable. (An amusing way to put it; I admit that The Messiah and Sgt. Pepper are products, too, but I never once thought of them in so cynical a fashion.) Chubbles (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can compromise as a Redirect if that'll avoid a "no consensus" closure. Graywalls (talk) 04:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer, the redirect target is itself up for AfD, so a redirect here may and perhaps is likely to result in a delete in practice. Chubbles (talk) 07:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that AfD failed and closed as no-consensus due to minimal participation :( Graywalls (talk) 06:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assasination of a Hamas member in the West Bank[edit]

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

Article about a news item from this past February that lacks an indication of enduring notability. Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Article was WP:PRODed (by me) and endorsed, but was dePRODed by the currently-blocked creator. - Eureka Lott 23:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Israel, and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as the person who endorsed the PROD. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 16:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:SUSTAINED User:Let'srun 02:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is NOTNEWS.★Trekker (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just like any other article where the only sources are news coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and as an extreme stub. DO NOT REDIRECT, now or in the future, as assassination was misspelled. gidonb (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. The so-called 2nd nomination has more commentary.‎. Courcelles (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Majid Sajadi[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:BIO including WP:NACTOR and WP:BASIC. Also violates WP:NOTWEBHOST —siro χ o 22:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there’s also second nomination here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majid Sajadi (2nd nomination) Wikipedian (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kylan Darnell[edit]

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

Non notable pageant titleholder, much of the sources used are just gossip sites or mentions in passing. Fails WP:GNG. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 21:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her notability comes more so from her role as a TikTok creator/social media influencer and less from here time as the 2022 Miss Ohio Teen USA. She is the subject of this E! News article Miss Teen USA Here's Where Alabama Rush Queen Kylan Darnell Placed and was intereviewed here by The Teen Magazine [14] but in news that came out today, she has been in Elite Daily [15], that starts off with "Kylan Darnell became known as the “Queen of Bama Rush” after her daily OOTDs went viral on TikTok in August 2022, garnering her tens of millions of views and 500,000 new followers." Also today, she was featured in this story by Tubefilter ([16]) and in USA Today ([17]). -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources I have listed above are not yet in the article but can, and should, be included. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sourcing is horrible for a BLP article, but she has notability if the articles that Willthacheerleader18 listed were to be included. Longhornsg (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment here are some more sources I've come across: The New York Observer mentioned here in their article The Ratings are in and Season 2 of TikTok's Alabama Rush Was A Huge Hit, featured in this Yahoo! Sports article Alabama Rush Tok Is Back — Here’s What the Girlies Are Wearing This Year, mentioned in this The US Sun article What is Alabama Rush on TikTok?, profiled in this TickerTV News article The Queen Of Bama Rush: A Year Later, and profiled in this What's Trending article TikTok Creator Kylan Darnell Attracts Criticism For Negative Barbie Review. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, Internet, and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has significant reliable source coverage on the Tik Tiok rush angle. --Mvqr (talk) 10:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject meets WP:GNG per the sources already provided. User:Let'srun 12:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above comments Elttaruuu (talk) 02:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sniper Special Ops[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability requirements. Film Link review is the only one there is, Rotten Tomatoes only has it, nothing else (same review used as the one source here). Oaktree b (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see also for example:

https://www.looper.com/279844/the-best-and-worst-steven-seagal-movies/
https://theactionelite.com/sniper-special-ops-2016-review/
https://tvmag.lefigaro.fr/programme-tv/programme/sniper-special-ops-f152915200
https://wizzley.com/the-seagal-report-sniper-special-ops-2016/
or in this book

-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looper is a trivial few lines, Figaro is a synopsis for a tv guide, the other two don't seem RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looper has.... 3 paragraphs on the film. Le Figaro contains a one-line critical assessment. Etc. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so we have one goodish source with Looper. The rest aren't useful. I can't open that Gbook preview from my location due to copyright reasons, so I can't comment. Oaktree b (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add the following for example, and even with your count (with which I obviously do not fully agree) you have 2.

https://www.mymovies.it/film/2016/sniperforzespeciali/

My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Noonan, John (2016-11-10). "Sniper: Special Ops". FilmInk. Archived from the original on 2023-08-20. Retrieved 2023-08-20.
  The review notes: "Already narratively weak to say the least, with Mosby’s men forced to deal with another mission before they tackle the case of a missing team member, the film really drags when Seagal is on screen. Trapped in a room with a fellow fallen soldier, the Under Siege star appears utterly disinterested with his part in this whole thing; staring off into the middle distance whilst mumbling all his lines. If you have a stockpile of irony stashed away, you may be able to sit through this with enough good favour, but that’s not an admission of approval."
2. Hayes, David C. (2022). Hard to Watch: The Films of Steven Seagal. Orlando, Florida: BearManor Media. ISBN 978-8-88771-012-0. Retrieved 2023-08-20 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "So with a title like Sniper Special Ops, it feels like we can sit down with Steven Seagal and friends and we know what we're getting into. And Sniper Special Ops starts out strong! The very first scene gives us everything we want in an exciting film about a sniper. We've got a special ops team moving into a war-torn village in the desert. There's witty banter and snappy repartee from the troops. We've got large men in desert camo weaving through a village, while Chandler (Seagal) and his spotter watch from 550 - 650 meters away to cover their advance. And twelve-point-five minutes into this film, he abandons that sweet, silenced, long-range dealer of death and as far as I could tell he didn't pick it up again for the entire movie. He stands up, grabs an assault rifle, and proceeds to spray bullets from the rooftop. From 550 - 650 meters away."
3. Zappoli, Giancarlo (2016-08-05). "In Zona B Movie, Dove la Retorica Non Manca Ma è Accettabile, Si Riconosce Al Film Una Certa Dose Di Coraggio" [In Zona B Movie, Where Rhetoric Is Not Lacking But It Is Acceptable, A Certain Dose Of Courage Is Recognized In The Film] (in Italian). Mymovies.it. Archived from the original on 2016-12-20. Retrieved 2023-08-20.
  The article notes: "Questa decisione consente di costruire un clima di tensione notevole e di dare allo spettatore, comodamente seduto in poltrona, la sensazione di stare assistendo a un vero scontro. Anche la scelta di procedere successivamente con un montaggio parallelo contribuisce a tenere desta l'attenzione sui due versanti della narrazione. Ovviamente la retorica non manca ma, grazie forse anche alla presenza di due personaggi femminili, viene proposta a livelli accettabili."
  From Google Translate: "This decision makes it possible to build a climate of considerable tension and to give the viewer, comfortably seated in an armchair, the feeling of being witnessing a real battle. Even the choice to proceed later with a parallel editing helps to keep the attention on the two sides of the narrative. Obviously the rhetoric is not lacking but, thanks perhaps also to the presence of two female characters, it is proposed at acceptable levels."
4. O'Shei, Tim (2016-05-10). ""It Feels Like I Was Part of Something That Was Really Cool." - Amoia's Biggest Role Was on 'How I Met Your Mother'". The Buffalo News. Archived from the original on 2023-08-20. Retrieved 2023-08-20 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "And unpredictability. Last week, Amoia’s latest movie, “Sniper: Special Ops,” was released on video. When the film’s producers cast her as the female lead opposite Steven Seagal and Rob Van Dam, they were impressed with the clips from Amoia’s video reel that showed her dropping by rope and firing guns. Except Amoia never had a role where she was swinging on a rope. Nor had she fired a gun. The producers had accidentally received the wrong reel with Amoia’s name attached, so hired her thinking they were getting someone with a different skill set. But Amoia was there, and willing, and shooting was about to begin. So she stayed, learned the lines (and how to shoot a weapon) and kept the job."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sniper: Special Ops to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Scott[edit]

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

This biography article lacks in-depth sources to establish notability. Of the two references here, both are dead links. After searching, I found several sources, but for other people with this same name. The article was created by a new user on 10 April 2011 (their only contribution to Wikipedia), and previously PROD on the same day. JoeNMLC (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Business, and Virginia. — Karnataka ^talk 19:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - since posting here, a bot rescued the first reference Okay, however the second reference Failed verification. JoeNMLC (talk) 01:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only links found are for a Travis Scott, nothing for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSICBIO He is one of 541 million people who have a Twitter account. This article was the only edit by the editor, most likely himself. No real mentions on a Google search. At best, harmonica playing is his hobby, not anything that makes him notable. — Maile (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FK Partizan Momišići[edit]

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

Not notable - a one sentence article about a 1996 defunct sports club (mentioned in Tološi Stadium article). After searching, unable to find sources to establish notability. Created on 1 March 2007; was Proposed deletion 25 May 2023 and Deprod on the same day JoeNMLC (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Montenegro. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I sent notifications to: Created by - User talk:Sideshow Bob; Prod - User talk:Chidgk1; Deprod - User talk:Ortizesp. JoeNMLC (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Did not find any coverage of the subject in either English or Montenegrin. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence club meets club notability , also unable to find any sources to expand article. Demt1298 (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Tredway (Canadian politician)[edit]

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

Local city councillor who does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unremarkable person in an unremarkable office. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable in the absence of sufficient WP:GNG-worthy coverage and analysis about his work to satisfy WP:NPOL #2 — no, "had a school named after him" is not an instant GNG exemption either — but the article isn't showing anything even close to what's required, and I'm just not finding anything close to enough to salvage it on a WP:BEFORE search. Bearcat (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW keep. BD2412 T 03:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ordningsvakt[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Sweden. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the distincion between ordningsvakt (with limited peace officer authority) and väktare (regular security guard) is important. The latter doesn't need a Swedish standalone article, but the ordningsvakt does. Draken Bowser (talk) 07:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and passes WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the distincion between ordningsvakt (a security police officer authority) and väktare (a security guard) is important. The latter doesn't need a Swedish standalone article, but the ordningsvakt does. After all there is a Security police article which has been on wikipedia for years.Degen Earthfast (talk) 12:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is in desperate need of a rewrite, not deletion. The term is used across RS and the general web (including English versions of job sites like Indeed and Glassdoor) which definitely clears the GNG hurdle. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:GNG is met. Sources are ok, but can always be improved.BabbaQ (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, GNG is definitely met for Ordningsvakt as a specific office in Swedish law, distinct from security guards as a whole. --AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I agree that perhaps this article should have been draftified rather than brought to AFD as, even if it was deleted, it would have been recreated in the near future once the release date occurred. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NHL 24[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGAME and WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Ice hockey. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or Draft) It's certainly early, but articles are coming out today about the cover athlete and a "full reveal" is scheduled for 2 days from now. It will release in a couple months and will certainly be notable. Every other NHL game has an article. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 19:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. This article can come out the same time as the others. It could be a couple of days or up to the start of the NHL season. Conyo14 (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Obvious TOOSOON. Articles are coming out about Makar being on the cover, but that doesn't provide substantive coverage to the subject: "Cale Makar will be on the cover of NHL24" says nothing about the subject beyond those nine words, and that isn't even sub-stub material. Ravenswing 21:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is apparently due to be announced in 2 days, might be worth just sitting on and seeing how the article develops. - Indefensible (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Nominated for AfD two hours after creation and one hour after initial media coverage of the cover athlete selection (ESPN, Hockey News, among others). WP:ATD is policy; WP:ATD-I both allows and suggests that new page reviewers can unilaterally draftify before nominating for deletion. The nominator was this page's reviewer, and this AfD just wasted people's time instead. -Socccc (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Socccc. - Indefensible (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The game is set to be revealed on August 16th. For some comparison, the reveal trailer for NHL 23 came out on August 25, 2022 and the article was created one day earlier. I don't believe any harm is done in keeping this article for two days. IncompA 00:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It sort of allows to keep a precedence to avoid breaking WP:TOOSOON, even if it's by a day. Drafting with better sources is better than having an article where none exist yet. Conyo14 (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except that that this AfD can't close until several days after the scheduled full reveal date. Rlendog (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is something called WP:SNOW. It can be applied to drafting something clearly to WP:TOOSOON. Conyo14 (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, it might be TOOSOON, but if the game is revealed in a few days, which will be days before this discussion is closed, this article could have plenty of time to establish itself. NegativeMP1 (talk) 04:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would have boldly redirected or sent it to draft space rather than use AFD, as there will almost certainly be enough sourcing for an article by the time this AFD closes after 7 days. Highly doubt this closes anything other than keep. Sergecross73 msg me 14:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IncompA. Despite being TOOSOON when created, there's a good chance the game's official reveal happens before this discussion is even closed. The Kip (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Normally an appropriate WP:TOOSOON, but since the game has now since been announced, there is no practical reason to delete. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Striking my original vote now that the trailer is out. To the nominator, if this happens again, just boldly send it to draft. WP:TOOSOON can allow for a speedy draft if it's necessary. Conyo14 (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; I have now added four sources from reliable sources listed at Wikipedia:VG/S that prove this subjects notability. I haven't expanded the article beyond stub with them, nor do I plan to, but they should be enough to prove that there is in-fact notability to be found here. NegativeMP1 17:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Barrymore (SZA Song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Coverage here [18], lesser quality sourcing here [19] and [20] Oaktree b (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a good bit of coverage in Ctrl (SZA album) which could be added. And regardless, if this gets kept then it needs to be moved to Drew Barrymore (SZA song) with that lowercase S. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am seeing enough music video, live performance, etc. coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject that look to warrant a separate article from the album. Heartfox (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Heartfox. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 10:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Heartfox. Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. My only comment is that a future AFD might be considered in a few months' time to see if coverage is sustained or whether this could be considered a case for WP:BLP1E. But do not immediately renominate this article for AFD2 if you don't care for this closure, please, we don't need an automatic repeat of this AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Anthony[edit]

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

Lack of sustained notability (WP:SUSTAINED) and lack of evidence of wide public acclaim, even within his subfield of country music, other than that a few talking heads and conservative news outlets trying to introduce him to the public ("No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason.") and that a large number of copies of his music were bought without evidence that a large number of actual people bought his music, which can be gamed by a few buying many copies each, and so evidence of a large number of actual fans would be necessary to establish notability as far as being an iTunes "chart topper". Chai T. Rex (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Chai T. Rex (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted)
or maybe it's just an unneeded article as of now. Surprisingly that your only other contribution is removing the hate crime part of the Ahmaud Aubrey, which was found true in a court of law. Mighty Midas (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it to yourself 12. You'll get banned here. Oaktree b (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The individual in question has the #1 country song on iTunes, almost half a million Instagram followers, and almost 725k TikTok followers, so this artist is past the point of being “gamed by a few buying many copies each”. This page would be a relevant add, as any chart-topping artist should have a Wikipedia page for reference. I doubt anyone could generate this much buzz, gain this many new followers, and have a #1 hit on iTunes erroneously. What a coincidence that all would have to be. AlexJMPR (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

iTunes ranking does not matter. See WP:SINGLEVENDOR. Neither do any of those others, which are also gameable. Do you have something that isn't gameable like concert attendance figures? He's had a concert. Chai T. Rex (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSICBIO -

Meets #1:

https://www.billboard.com/lists/oliver-anthony-rich-men-from-north-of-richmond-facts/

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-country/rich-men-north-of-richmond-oliver-anthony-conservative-country-song-1234805701/amp/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna99698

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12405739/amp/Oliver-Anthony-BIBLE-VERSE-Rich-Men-North-Richmond.html AlexJMPR (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail is not a reliable source (WP:DAILYMAIL) and shouldn't be used here or in the article.

#1 isn't met as the Billboard article is the only one that has him as half of the topic of the article rather than just background information about the sole stated topic of the other articles, which is one of his songs. That might support the notability of the Rich Men North of Richmond article. They don't support his being notable enough to have his own article separate from the song article, if that's the only thing they've seen fit to write articles about.

It should also be noted that the reason for not redirecting the article to Rich Men North of Richmond was the invalid criteria proposed by the person who closed that discussion of "Right now Oliver Anthony has the top 3 on iTunes all genres, half of the top 10, half of the top 14 and 15 of the top 50. Clearly he’s much more than the song itself, although that also deserves an article. These stats also mean that it’s absurd to suggest, even for a moment, that he’s not notable enough for an article, so I deleted that hatnote." and "There is a separate article for the song, and it’s fairly obvious that this man is not just going to be famous, he is already. It’s time this discussion was closed."

That's invalid because of WP:SUSTAINED as all these events have happened within the past half-week and his fame will last a very short time for all anyone knows (which isn't sufficient to support an article about the artist), use of iTunes as a WP:SINGLEVENDOR, irrelevant psychic predictions of his future fame, and the actual evidence of his notability that doesn't quite meet WP:MUSICBIO being one article by Billboard. Chai T. Rex (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You are obviously not aligned with his political ideology and this is the sole purpose of you're attempt to have the page removed. You have nothing better to do with your time. 211.170.54.36 (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, we don't use political ideology when deciding if a source is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your biases could not be more obvious if you wore them on a t-shirt. Keep. 2601:3C2:8281:9DD0:9C72:D7C4:C8C3:74E3 (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Size Large please. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is nominating this as an AFD a joke? The last time I looked, the subject was absolutely dominating the iTunes all genres chart: #1, #2, #3, 5 in the top 10, 7 in the top 14, 15 in the top 50. And he’s not notable? FFS! Whether this all happened out of nowhere is irrelevant. He is a phenomenon and totally deserves his own article. Please close this discussion now. Boscaswell talk 20:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
iTunes ranking does not matter. See WP:SINGLEVENDOR. Chai T. Rex (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No joke, Itunes streams don't matter for notability. You can pay streaming farms to stream your song over and over and the numbers aren't audited, so don't count. Oaktree b (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's the download chart, not streaming. Hzh (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same idea, they don't count for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What matters is if Anthony meets WP:MUSICBIO, not subjective notability measured by popularity on social media or iTunes. CJ-Moki (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely ridiculous AFD submission and an even more unbelievably irrational comment from Chai T Rex. It is beyond sad Wikipedia has turned into inflamed individuals hijacking articles with their unfounded bias. Oliver Anthony is all the talk of county music and his notability has already been well established; any true county fan could verify that. Joemama46 (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock SWinxy (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which criterion or criteria from WP:MUSICBIO are you referring to? If it isn't the WP:SINGLEVENDOR iTunes ranking that explicitly doesn't count but which is the only thing listed in the article, what is it? Chai T. Rex (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSICBIO -

Meets #1:

https://www.billboard.com/lists/oliver-anthony-rich-men-from-north-of-richmond-facts/

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-country/rich-men-north-of-richmond-oliver-anthony-conservative-country-song-1234805701/amp/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna99698

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12405739/amp/Oliver-Anthony-BIBLE-VERSE-Rich-Men-North-Richmond.html AlexJMPR (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a bit of a waste to have to have to point out that I responded to a comment that seems to be quite similar to this above. Chai T. Rex (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My reply on this thread was to CJ-Moki. AlexJMPR (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability seems well supported by a variety of reliable secondary sources (Rolling Stone, Daily News, NBC News, Colorado Springs Gazette) in the article and here (some sources here don't appear in the article, and should be added. Not it!). _signed,Willondon (talk)

Those sources are about one of his songs, which already has an article at Rich Men North of Richmond. While I agree that these may support the notability for that article, they aren't about the artist, mentioning him solely in service of talking about the song.

The exception is that the Colorado Springs Gazette's republishing of a Washington Examiner article also "simply report[s] performance dates" and stats that fail WP:SINGLEVENDOR in addition to talking about the song, which don't meet WP:MUSICBIO. Chai T. Rex (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The news articles mentioned on this discussion page and the wiki article discuss the artist and his background, hence why the claims made in the wiki article are justly backed up and cited. You do not get to gatekeep what qualifies as relevant information as it relates to notability within an article. These articles all attest to his notability, with millions of views across many popular streaming platforms; his notability is real and you will loose on denying it. Joemama46 (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock SWinxy (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets GNG and SIGCOV per examples above, just because he is new does not mean he is not notable. At this rate, he will continue to gain more notability soon enough as well and likely remain relevant for long enough to meet WP:SUSTAINED, so at most I would say to at least move to a draft for the time being until the article is expanded more with the soufces listed above. Deletion is pointless this early on when he will almost inevitably clearly meet notability standards soon enough. Seacactus 13 (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Rolling Stone [21] is an ok-ish source, and Billboard [22] is about half a source. We'd need one more solid ref to keep this, but I can't find one. Oaktree b (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify It's reasonable to expect he will meet WP:SUSTAINED, but he's not there yet. There is no shortage of outlets covering him at the moment, including The A.V. Club, NBC News, and the Richmond Times-Dispatch, so shortage of reliable sources is not the issue. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 22:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to the article existing once notability (of the artist, not just the one song) is met. Chai T. Rex (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No evidence to suggest he won't remain notable. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to have sufficient notability supported by references such as https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/rich-men-north-richmond-viral-conservative-anthem-rcna99698 which just published today and others within the last week. - Indefensible (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, read several articles on him and this song today in NBC, FOX and Axois. Also saw him as a headline on Fox News probably 3 times today, each dedicating several minutes of commentary. 184.14.104.254 (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please KEEP this article, as there is a lot of information and interest available about this singer. Julieprus (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify This fellow has been newsworthy for the past couple of weeks, the article needs more time and attention out of the spotlight to craft a well-sourced, balanced article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You better not delete this man! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.3.53 (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - His "notability" is heavily astroturfed. Which is sort of a weird paradox as far as Wikipedia goes - Wikipedia shouldn't be used as part of an astroturfing campaign, but if that astroturfing campaign is successful, well, they're actually notable now and should get an article. I am not convinced that this one will stick. Delete for now, but it can come back if it is actually notable later. Right now it just reads like a promotional blurb. HeroofTime55 (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At this point the evidence overwhelmingly shows his going viral was fueled by millions of individuals viewing his content causing social algorithms to show his song to more and more. But even if it was an astroturf job paid for by someone wouldn’t you just make his page with that context ? 2600:1700:78BC:10:C5A5:9945:DC7F:D537 (talk) 06:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be original research to put that in the article without it being in a reliable external source, so no, it wouldn't just be put in the article. People have done deep dives on this guy, who literally came out of nowhere overnight, and it has every appearance of an (in this case, far right) astroturf job - people manipulating algorithms to exploit certain technology platforms to trick them into thinking it's going viral, until it finally does. For example, the "#1 on iTunes" thing that keeps getting repeated. But there's no real reach on any other platforms to that degree (such as Spotify). Strongly indicative of astroturfing targeting a platform with low standards for weeding out fake usage.

There's a lot more to the picture, buried a little bit under the surface but not painting a pretty picture, that leads me to hypothesize that this is going to be a "flash in the pan" that people move on from rather quickly. If that turns out true, then there isn't any notability, same as now, when we don't have great sources. If it goes beyond that, then it attains actual notability, and we can go ahead and create the article again, that isn't a problem. But I think leaving it up in the meantime even as a draft is problematic in the context of astroturfing. HeroofTime55 (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you should mention Spotify, Hero, since Variety have just reported "Anthony’s breakout tune has cracked the top 10 on a much more indicative one, Spotify’s daily USA Top 50." [23] Boscaswell talk 20:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have anything to actually back up the claim that his viral fame is astroturfed? You cant just give vague reasonings like this, while ironically calling on others to rely on reliable external sources. Friedbyrd (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's PROMO if we support astroturfing. Oaktree b (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of whether or not the astroturfing is successful, but whether or not that astroturfing makes him notable. Even if he is an industry plant, the considerable controversy around Oliver Anthony and his music has made knowledge about him part of the public interest. Wikipedia is a collection of knowledge and that includes knowledge of people we find objectionable. Therefore we must keep this article. Flameoguy (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was the one who originally tagged the article over concerns of the subject's notability, but I chose not to take to it to an AfD discussion, because as I see it, it will be a waste of time and effort for everyone because the issue is likely to be only temporary. It's true he is now only known for a single song, but iTunes charts show 3 of his songs occupies the top 3 positions, 9 in the top 20, 17 in the top 50. There is also an EP in the album chart. When the Billboard charts come out next week, the situation will likely be different. We see that a tour has been announced, and an album is also likely with notable artists willing to help him on that. While WP:SUSTAINED says that if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual, the indications are that he is likely NOT to stay low-profile. I therefore don't see WP:SUSTAINED as a likely problem. I think the nominator is also wrong in suggesting that the song rose in the chart because it somehow has been "gamed" (or the suggestions of astroturfing by someone else), I've been an observer of the charts (iTunes, Billboard, etc.) for a long time, and the pattern of his charting songs we are seeing now is typical of when someone suddenly comes into focus in the news (e.g. when an artist dies), but also appears to be longer-lasting as far as iTunes is concerned. I do think this is part of something unusual that is happening in right-wing socio-cultural sphere, a sequence of events including the Bud Light boycott, the Sound of Freedom film, Jason Aldean's "Try That in a Small Town", and as such he will likely be the subject of commentary in the future. Hzh (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that didn't take long, the commentary on the significance of Oliver Anthony's song together with the Sound of Freedom film and "Try That in a Small Town" from The Washington Post. Hzh (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Given the majority of reliable sources and significant coverage is about his song rather than him, and that there is basically no coverage prior to August 13, 2023, this seems to me like a clear case of WP:RECENTISM and WP:TOOSOON. If he's going to be notable in about a week, as some here are arguing, then create the article on him in about a week (or whenever it's clear the topic is notable). ––FormalDude (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would just be a pointless exercise, since this discussion may not close for at least a week, by which time the situation may be different. I would not have created the article, but, once it's been created, leave it, then just wait and see. The coverage of the song has now spread outside of right-wing press internationally, it's almost guaranteed that there there will be further coverage of the person himself. Hzh (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not a fan of his schtick or the morons who started worshipping him last week, but as an attempted ethical voter, my conclusion is that the article is viable. He has been profiled by Rolling Stone and Billboard among others, so he absolutely has reliable coverage as a musician. And if he returns to obscurity next week (cross your fingers), the article will still be viable under WP:NTEMP. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If there was a genuine concern about long term notability this could have been nominated for deletion next week, but given how much coverage this person has received, this is an easy keep decision. Nemov (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is significant coverage of Anthony himself, as well as the song, and of course his other songs are now receiving attention. Even if he ends up being a one-hit wonder, he will still be notable. St Anselm (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 17:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rich Men North of Richmond. This is the sort of flash-in-the-pan temporary notability that WP:BLP1E was written to cover, especially as it's painfully obvious how much Anthony's notability has been astroturfed. Sceptre (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BLP1E, the required conditions are clearly not all met in this scenario. It has already been well established, both in references shared to this discussion page and the main article page, that Oliver Anthony is actively being covered as a separate and specific individual alongside his viral artistic work in the mainstream media, disqualifying any rationale supporting a merge or redirect under this clause. This coverage is not just for one the release of a single song but also for his many other songs currently on multiple streaming platform's charts. Additionally, his impromptu performance with multi-grammy award winner Jamey Johnson this past weekend in NC also received widespread attention in the media. Your insinuations really show your bias, consider opening your eyes; this is what real engagement looks like and time will prove you wrong on the subject of his notability. I am sorry you disagree with his work and newfound popularity, but attempting to suppress this article due to your evident bias' will not be tolerated. Joemama46 (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock SWinxy (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Solid analysis, thank you. I came across this artist through an economics blog - I’ll add the reference :) Joseph stewart (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's just as much coverage of that guy who did that eurodance parody song that's gone viral this month too. Doesn't mean he's independently notable of the song. The song is notable, but Anthony is not independent of the song. And like Planet of the Bass, people are going to forget about Industry Plant #4380 in two weeks. Sceptre (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please spare us of this utter ridiculousness and factually fallacy; the example has nowhere near the broad scope of media coverage or quality thereof that Oliver Anthony has and is continuing to received both as an orgin story and for the numerous examples of viral work topping the music charts. Your doubling down of unjust insinuations further indicates your bias as someone else already stated, it saddens me to see this is what Wikipedia has turned into. 173.219.88.194 (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You really don't want people to hear about Oliver Anthony huh? 78.80.44.84 (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a news outlet. If there aren't enough news sources to let people know about him, he's not notable enough to have an article. If there are enough news sources, the article will be kept. Either way, letting people hear about him in the sense of publicizing him isn't the job of Wikipedia. Chai T. Rex (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Absolutly no reason to remove the article as far as I see it. Sure he is a minor figure with relatively small fame from exposure on the internet, but I dont see how this would at all warrant a deletion due to some rule wikipedia has. The criticism laid out in the original. The point about "a few talking heads" from conservative news trying to advertise for him is 100% not true. His music video on youtube blew up and became a viral hit, THEN news outlets (left leaning, right leaning, and moderate) from Fox News to NBC covered the story.

Aside from the political angle, hes a musician and he has gained a lot of notability from that. Hes been covered by Billboard and Rolling Stones in articles and has gotten notable recognition from people within the country music world. Both John Rich and Jamey Johnson have spoken about collaborating with him since his video came out.

"and that a large number of copies of his music were bought without evidence that a large number of actual people bought his music, which can be gamed by a few buying many copies each, and so evidence of a large number of actual fans would be necessary to establish notability as far as being an iTunes "chart topper"."

And this is just you making up a scenario without even bothering to attempt to back it up. No reason to take this article down. Friedbyrd (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how this works. It needs to be proven that he is notable, not that he isn't notable. The articles I've seen so far, except for one, have been primarily about his song, not about him, because it's his song that's notable, not him. That definitely supports keeping the article about the song, but not the article about him personally. Chai T. Rex (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You made several points in your original post that hold no real water to them but are pure speculation. Either way its been 10 days still and articles are still being written about him and his song in major publication. Even across the pond his song is topping the charts and there is a BBC article about him. Almost all the articles are about both Oliver Anthony and "Rich Men North of Richmond"Friedbyrd (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His biographical record is sourced to The Oklahoman, Variety, Taste of Country, the Los Angeles Times, KFDI-FM in Kansas (of all places), American Songwriter, and Billboard, among others. We go by the sources, don’t we? When the media from the East to the West Coast is interested in the biography of the singer at the top of both Spotify and iTunes, per here, he clearly meets WP:NBLP. XavierItzm (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. He clearly meets the criteria of having "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Evans1982 (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete this seems accurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:500:8901:53F0:B801:2E15:7694:5509 (talk) 07:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, Merge to Rich Men North of Richmond, as this is the only coverage in relation to him for the most part. If he gets more viral singles later on, I might change my mind, but I am not a crystal ball and cannot predict that. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 17:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to learn more about Oliver Anthony after hearing his song, "Rich Men North of Richmond." The first place I looked was Wikipedia. Shocked to see they were considering deleting the entry. I understand you all may have rules about what stays and what goes. But for him to have the number one song on iTunes, it seems relevant that he would have an entry on here. If his info wasn't on Wikipedia, I'd just go to another source which I'm fine to do. No skin off my nose. 170.190.198.106 (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't allow iTunes sales counts as evidence of notability (see WP:SINGLEVENDOR). They can be gamed by a few people buying a bunch of copies. Instead, Wikipedia looks for more reliable indicators of notability. His song has received some coverage by some reputable news organizations, so the song is probably notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but the man might not be. Chai T. Rex (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pretty clearly has sufficient coverage to establish notability at this point. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. As mentioned above (and as should be understandable) the only real noteworthiness of the article revolves around Rich Men North of Richmond which -- though popular *now* -- is not guaranteed to *always* be popular, nor is Oliver Anthony *guaranteed* to release further music that resonates with an audience on a similar scale. IF (not WHEN, as some have suggested) the man behind the song becomes noteworthy enough to warrant something more in-depth that requires more scouring than the average Tom, Dick, or Harry can manage with a quick Google search (which would then require compiling into an article here about the man), THEN is the time to be discussing another article for the man behind the song rather than simply having an article to cover the song itself.176.10.146.192 (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Worth observing that 'seven’ of Anthony’s songs sat at the top of iTunes and one, “Ain’t Gotta Dollar” reached No. 1 on Spotify’s Viral 50 chart, as documented in the article. Therefore any arguments about just one song are pretty ignorant at this point.XavierItzm (talk) 02:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seven of Anthony's songs are sitting at the top of iTunes now having ridden in on the virality of "Rich Men North of Richmond". Have they been in the charts for very long prior to the success of "Rich Men North of Richmond"? Did they chart at all prior to the viral hit? And will they stay relevant or popular once the hype for "Rich Men North of Richmond" dies down? I apologize if I struck a nerve with anyone about my perspective, but -- last I checked -- this was still an open forum where users could voice their opinions. And seeing users stumbling over themselves to both point at the current popularity of "Rich Men North of Richmond" as evidence that he will stay relevant (something that Anthony has seemingly stated that he had no interest in, nor desire for, in releasing "Rich Men North of Richmond") while simultaneously swarming to defend the popularity of someone whose existence was completely unknown to them a month ago seems -- to me -- a little suspect. 176.10.146.192 (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do explain how the massive amount of coverage about him not just the song and other successful songs of his don't warrant notability already. Seacactus 13 (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly view the reply to the comment above this one. Thank you very much and have a good day. 176.10.146.192 (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and per the number of sources documenting him X-Editor (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Woah! It says in Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process under Competence that someone nominating an article for deletion is expected to have a reasonable degree of competence. But in this case, the nominator has made a total of 144 edits. That doesn’t strike me as being anything near to approaching the level of experience required to show competence.

Yet all of the above discussion has resulted from this one inexperienced editor taking it upon his or herself to nominate the article for deletion. Which resulted in the article itself being hit with a massive hatnote about being nominated for deletion.

Conclusion: this discussion merits nothing less than a very Speedy closure. The current situation is an absurdity. Must it be strung out any further? Boscaswell talk 02:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations done in good faith with a valid rationale should not be speedily closed because the nominator is new or "inexperienced". If it's clear the discussion is headed nowhere productive (as it kinda seems here), it may be a WP:SNOW close. (See also WP:SK.) SWinxy (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been all over the place from the very beginning, even the original user who marked the article for nomination of deletion under the rationale of WP:SUSTAINED recanted their claims about deletion while expressing regret over wishing they had not marked the article to begin with. Open and shut, Speedy Keep. 173.219.88.194 (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I definitely have not expressed regret about that, and I'm quite fine with my having marked the article for a discussion about deletion. The only thing I've said in line with that is that I'm fine with keeping the article if, over the next few weeks, he meets Wikipedia's notability standards. If that happens, that's fine. Chai T. Rex (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is asinine to consider this article for deletion. If nothing else, this is a one-hit wonder, worthy of trivia status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawfus (talk • contribs) 20:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike you who is a zero hit wonder. Are you mad no one gives a crap about you?? You’re 64.85.217.35 (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. When phenomena such as this happen, there can be valid NOTNEWS concerns to be considered. After all, it is not Wikipedia's purpose to cover everything that is at least vaguely memetic for a brief period. However, I believe that the articles for both Oliver Anthony himself and his "Rich Men North of Richmond" song are quality articles worthy of staying here. Anthony and his songs have enough coverage, notability, and cultural influence to not be deleted, and the Anthony page has a wide selection of sources, 30 citations in total, both local and national. The citations even supply the quotes of what is being cited, which is admirably more detail than I give when I usually cite. Meanwhile, the song's page has 19 citations that skew toward the national press, and even has a passage that dissects and analyzes the specific lyrics. These articles are beyond adequate and are very promising. The articles should be kept because, regardless of if his fame ends tomorrow or is sustained for decades, fact is that his chart success and the coverage about him and his music is prolific, diverse, and stratospheric enough for there to be, in my mind, no viable reason to delete the two articles related to him. The fact that he is not yet signed to any label noteworthy or otherwise, in reference to conventional notability standards for music, does not deter from my previous points.

I believe the nominator Chai T. Rex has brought in an unfortunate bias to his/her request, political and otherwise, and that "a few talking heads and conservative news outlets trying to introduce him to the public" is a laughable and simplistic understatement beaming with a grumbling those dang conservatives type of hubris; while "a large number of copies of his music were bought without evidence that a large number of actual people bought his music" is a baseless accusation that makes Anthony appear as an inorganic industry plant, which... goes completely against his ethos and why he rose to sudden stardom. How can someone be an industry plant if they are not even a part of the music industry, and even still might not yet be? How can such an explanation accommodate the fact that Anthony had never intended for himself as a musician to reach this level of fame, especially so quickly? Also, why does Rex use so much generalization and even, dare I say, conspiracy theorizing here?

Also, 64.85.217.35: your comment toward Lawfus is a personal attack and is unacceptable here. #64, please see your user talk page if you have not already. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per current news coverage. -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 16:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A little over two hours ago, Anthony entered the UK Singles Chart, thereby satisfying WP:MUSICBIO#C2. Laun chba ller 19:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What in the world. --193.121.16.254 (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of articles like this one on Wikipedia. The only reason this one is up for deletion is because of its "controversy." Let it stay, there's worse things out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.105.134.242 (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the song is terrible and the guy himself seems unremarkable - but, objectively, he's a present figure now and probably will be for a while, so there's no reason to get rid of the article, especially because it would make the article on the song much more cluttered to include all this info. Also, if it did turn out he was an 'industry plant' (which I doubt even though his political fanbase is annoying), that wouldn't suddenly mean he shouldn't have an article RapescoStapler (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough sources covering him already for the article to meet the necessary requirements. These come from a wide spectrum of media outlets, casting into doubt the nominator's claim that his notability is being artificially pushed by a small segment. Additionally, many of these sources include a personal focus on him, and not just on the song "Rich Men North of Richmond," serving as the basis for information included in this article that fits better here than in the article for the song. MojaveSummit (talk) 05:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, don’t understand why it should be deleted at all. He is an artist with multiple songs. There are far more esoteric articles on this platform. I believe that those wanting deletion are politically motivated and I’m a left leaner however I strongly believe in the first amendment. Stop trying to silence truth please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.127.18.45 (talk) 01:53, August 20, 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to Rich Men North of Richmond. All sources talking about him are from a one-week long stretch of time, a clear and present example of WP:BIO1E: he's known for his song, Rich Men North of Richmond, and nothing else. BIO1E is an important exemption to GNG. SWinxy (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the discussion in the media has now moved on to Oliver Anthony's role in right-wing popular culture, e.g. New York Magazine, The Washington Post, so per WP:BIO1E if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. In any case, WP:BIO1E is not appropriate for someone like him, since he is likely not to become known for only one song, because a number of his songs may chart on Billboard (we will know in a few days), and he also has an EP, and there will likely be an album and a tour. It is almost certain that coverage of him will expand to other events. Even if he remains a one-hit wonder, articles for of one-hit wonder artists are common because of their significance in popular culture, especially if he can reach No. 1 in the charts. Hzh (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Even if the ends up being a one-hit wonder like the Macarana or the Harlem Shake, it definitely has that zeitgeisty important feel to it. Jjazz76 (talk) 06:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There is a lot of sourcing to back up this page. PickleG13 (talk)
Keep. He is now getting proper WP:SIGCOV pieces on him as a subject (and not just his song), in WP:RS/P type quality sources including: Rolling Stone, Variety, and NME as exmaples. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he is clearly notable.

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of guest characters in video games[edit]

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

I think this would fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There's really no practical reason for this list to exist. There is nothing to gain by listing together the cameos in NBA Jam, Lego: The Incredibles, and Dead or Alive 4. There are so many different types of cameos. For example, Sora appearing in a Final Fantasy game is not too unusual given both games are owned by Square Enix. Compare to Freddy Krueger appearing in Mortal Kombat, or Benjamin Franklin in Tony Hawk. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this is definitely an indiscriminate list, listing guest characters regardless of the game or its notoriety goes against WP:NOTDATABASE - this is more of a job for a directory than Wikipedia. The page violates WP:NOT. Perhaps List of crossovers in video games should also be looked at. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: I've started a discussion at Talk:List of crossovers in video games#Scope about that article) TarkusAB^talk/contrib 19:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far too many guest characters, a list that will surely continue to grow over time, to be a practical list. Same with the crossover list. Note that discussion of crossovers and guest characters at the crossover article is reasonable with a few well known examples (Super Smash Bros as a crossover fighter, or guest fighters in the new MK) but not an extensive list.

Masem (t) 20:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and WP:NOTDATABASE. Conyo14 (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t quite understand why this list of guest characters has less reason to exist than the articles listing guest characters from different television shows. There is a whole category (Category:Lists of guest appearances in television) dedicated only to „List of guest characters in [x] series“ articles, which is why I split off this list from the „Guest appearance“ article in the first place. RayanWP (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, although a guest appearance by an IRL actor isn't necessarily the same as a video game where it usually boils down to just making a character model and plopping it in. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I see. Then the best course of action might be just to just reverse the split by merging the list back into the video games section of Guest appearance. RayanWP (talk) 07:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can try and argue that case, but if this is closed as delete, that means the list should not exist anywhere within Wikipedia. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:IINFO. Too many entries to maintain, with most of them unverifiable and arbitrary. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:GAMECRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 02:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keepor merge to Cameo appearance. That article is very bad too, and both need 95% TNT but that cameo article could benefit from a section on video games, with refs to [24], [25] or [26]. The three cited listicles suggest this may meet WP:LISTN. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these appearances are beyond a simple cameo, but rather fully playable to the same degree as a non-guest character. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't they get media attention for such things? Or is it just passing mention? Any major game series is going to get coverage that includes mention of their cameos. Dream Focus 07:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They do but it's on a game-by-game basis. There's no reason to list them all together. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Piotr. We definitely don't need a list like this, but video games warrant a mention in the article on cameos. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maybe the article with make more sense with a narrower scope (e.g. list of guest characters in fighting games). I am unsure about merging content to cameo appearance because guest characters are legitimate playable characters. OceanHok (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom here. Is a case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. User:Let'srun 19:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any more support for a selective Merge to either Guest appearance#Video games or Cameo appearance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I like the idea of the list, as other commenters have said, it's way too broad as a topic. Pokelego999 (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just wanted to add that cameo vs. guest appearances can also be varied through Easter egg (media) and the criteria for giving them a proper list appearance in the articles listed by Liz can be boiled down simply to WP:LISTN. My !vote remains the same though and honestly guest appearances in video games should be maintained in their respective "guest" or "game" articles. Conyo14 (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; this list has such an arbitrary and nearly-infinitely-expandable criteria so as to render it virtually unencyclopedic. 2601:204:C901:B740:5068:3FA3:FFAE:B187 (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Lim[edit]

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

Past mayor of Timmins, a town in Ontario with a population of ~41,000. The article is not written neutrally and the only source on the article (not counting the dead link) is just a passing mention. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Canada. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At the time this was first created (2005), the notability standard for mayors was "any city of regional prominence gets an automatic inclusion freebie for its mayors regardless of the state of sourcing" — but that's long since been kiboshed, and replaced with having to get the mayor over WP:GNG on substantive coverage and analysis of her mayoralty. But that's lacking, and this more or less elides any real substance about her mayoralty itself and instead slides into advertorializing ("Where Timmins may have lost out on a very astute, forward-thinking leader, the OFIA benefitted greatly from Ms. Lim's transformational leadership") her later work as CEO of a regional industry organization — but CEOs of organizations also aren't "inherently" notable just for existing either, and still have to show a lot more RS coverage and analysis of their work than has been brought to the table here. This just isn't cutting it at all. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability thresholds regarding mayors have changed in the meantime, resulting in this article no longer meeting WP:NPOL. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 23:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dakshayani Velayudhan Award[edit]

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

Only WP:ROUTINE run-of-the-mill coverage. Not yet achieved notability. Fails WP:INDEPTH. The Doom Patrol (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, India, and Kerala. The Doom Patrol (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not an event so WP:INDEPTH does not apply. Announcements of an award in honour of the first Dalit woman in constituent assembly is hardly routine. Existence of other sources from quick google search results suggests WP:BEFORE has not been followed. Jagmanst (talk) 06:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOM, fails WP:INDEPTH. A mention in the person's articles would be enough.--SM7^--talk-- 14:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jagmanst added references.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Running Season[edit]

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

NN album which lacks the coverage and accolades necessary to pass WP:NALBUM. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no notability claim here besides existing, which isn't automatically enough all by itself, but the sourcing is not getting it over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Blatt[edit]

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

Article appears like a vanity page WP:COI, contains content that is written like an advertisement. Subject doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies WP:GNG and doesn't have WP:SIGCOV from reliable secondary sources. Also as per WP:CREATIVE: The person is 'not regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors, with no real claim to fame. Does not satisfy criteria for Subjects notable only for one event: WP:BLP1E. Lethweimaster (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Lethweimaster (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sexuality and gender, and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be a lot of coverage of the person [27], [28] and [29]. Not sure he's a fixer, appears to be a "leaker", but that's another discussion altogether. Oaktree b (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article definitely needs improvements, many lines are subjective and definitely appear to come off as a Conflict of Interest (being referred to as a "fixer" seems ostentatious and being known for "outrageous stories" isn't really substantiated) - but he does seem to have a few articles that would constitute significant coverage (at least two where he is the main focus, one of which from Vice, a major news outlet). However, I would agree that he does not fall under the definition of being "regarded as an important figure or widely cited by peers or successors". A MINOTAUR (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Depressingly, the subject of the article does actually have enough significant coverage from reliable sources to meet the threshold of notability - the New York Magazine piece, the Wired piece, the Cleveland Plain Dealer article, and arguably the NBC piece. Also, he's kept in front of the media for a long time, so WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. As the old saying goes, nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the public. Fiachra10003 (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Horses Galore[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Unsourced. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications left at Talk:BBC Children's and Education, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject BBC, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Equine. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only primary sources and/or passing mentions found. Unlikely that more will turn up considering how long ago and short-lived the series was. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 20:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Morris, Jill (1980-07-17). "Time to saddle up for tips on riding". The Age. Archived from the original on 2023-08-13. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Horses Galore, a new programme from the BBC, begins on Channel 2 at 5 pm Thursday 24 July, is galloping-full of tiny tips for horse care, showjumping skill and training in dressage. In the first programme three young riders are given tips and practice in jumping by former champion equestrian Paddy McMahon; old Bert shows us in detail how to clean a saddle; and we have a sneak early-morning preview of rehearsals for the Musical Drive of the Royal Horse Artillery. 'Horses Galore' is rather like a series of items from 'This Week in Britain', and it constantly refers to the "children" who ride, clean saddles and so on, which is annoying. ... My tip is that 'Horses Galore' will become very popular. Don't miss it that is, if you're not too busy outside grooming your horse."
2. "Horses galore". Reading Evening Post. 1979-01-05. Archived from the original on 2023-08-13. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "So there is likely to be a big following for the new series of Horses Galore, which starts on BBC1 at 4 45pm this evening. Susan King introduces four special programmes, each one devoted to a particular aspect of horses and horsemanship. The opening programme features on last summer's World Driving Championships held in Hungary."
3. O'Hara, Monica (1977-09-12). "The ladies really raise the roof!". Liverpool Echo. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  The article notes: "Over 2,000,000 people ride regularly in Britain, and the figure is increasing annually. Horses Galore (B.B.C.-1, 5.5 morrow) is a new nine week series about horses, presented by Susan King. Each week, she will meet people involved in every aspect of the equine world. Three of her programmes will concentrate entirely on one subject, the others will look at different items. In the first, she visits show jumper Paddy McMahon at his Oxfordshire home and gives tips to amateur riders."
4. Pacey, Ann (1977-09-11). "Week's TV". Sunday Mirror. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  The article notes: "Horses Galore (BB C-1, 5.5). More than two million people ride horses regularly in Britain, at least half of them children. Fresh-faced and country-wise Susan King introduces this new series about horses, ponies, show-jumping and breeding. But not how to win your way to the stars via the bookmakers. Children will love it."
5. "Sudworths keeps the heat in". Huddersfield Daily Examiner. 1978-01-31. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  The article notes: "A BBC film crew is expected to arrive on Thursday to take shots of work in progress for the TV programme "Horses Galore." The feature, about junior horse riding, goes out under the production of David Turnbull, who visited the works the other day to prepare for the filming. The presenter is Susan King."
6. "TV Spotlight". Chester Chronicle. 1978-04-21. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  The article notes: "A record that has stood for 98 years is broken in dramatic fashion in Horses Galore' with Susan King on Friday, April 21 (BBC 1). Susan King witnesses the new record-breaking attempt, masterminded by 81-year-old George Mossman, who acts as coachman. ... From the time the wheels of the coach stop to the time the coach speeds on its way with four new horses in harness takes just 42 seconds."
7. "Back in Harness". Daily Mirror. 1978-05-09. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  The article notes: "They're off on a super new series of Horses Galore (BBC- 1, 4.40). Susan King visits Hampshire farmer Tom Sampson to see his antique horse-drawn fire-engine in action. In the days before motorised fire engines many houses were saved from destruction by the combination of such engines—and a team of fast horses."
8. "Courses for Horses". Coventry Evening Telegraph. 1979-01-19. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  The article notes: "Horses Galore (BBC 1, 4.45) ... In this programme, Susan King looks behind the scenes at Stoneleigh, in particular at a sponsored course for promising riders — and promising horses. She also visits the Horse Of The Year Show and she learns how freeze marking may finally frustrate the horse thief."
9. "Hats off to Major". Daily Mirror. 1979-01-12. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  The article notes: "Producer David Turnbull was chatting to farmer Tom Sampson for Horses Galore (BBC-1, 4.45) when a six-month-old foal gently took hold of Tom's cap in his teeth, and placed it neatly at his feet. The foal, Major, started removing farmer Sampson's cap out of naughtiness.. Now he does it as a party trick. Susan King introduces the programme, which shows carthorses working on farms, taking part in a ploughing match and pulling brewery carts."
10. "Horse facts and fiction". Coventry Evening Telegraph. 1979-07-25. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  The article notes: "Susan King has been around horses all her life, but it was pure chance that she landed the job of presenting a television programme about her favourite animal. But Susan knows her subject, and in Horses Galore (Pelham, £3-95), the book of the BBC - TV series, she captures the same enthusiasm in print that she did on the small screen. The book, which will appeal to horse lovers of all ages, covers 28 subjects from road safety to the Horse of the Year Show. And the story of how she got the television job is something of a fairy story come true."
11. "Horses Galore". Lincolnshire Echo. 1979-01-13. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  The article notes: "In just ten years the National Equestrian Centre at the Royal Showground. Stoneleigh. Warwickshire. has become known as the "University of the Horse," and that is the sub title for Horses Galore' on Friday (BBC 1) Established in 1967. the NEC is dedicated to the care of the horse and rider and is the home for several equestian organisations. Presenter Susan King looks behind the scenes at a sponsored course for promising young riders — and promising horses Susan also visits the Horse of the Year Show and she learns how freeze marking may finally frustrate the horse thief."
12. "Wednesday". Aldershot News. 1979-05-22. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  The article notes: "4.40-5.05. p.m. - Horses Galore. While breeding thorough-bred horses today is an expensive and carefully thought out business to produce the best possible animal, the most prized breed in the world - the Arabian - has unknown origins. Susan King traces the 5.000-year history of the most influential breed of horse in the world."
13. "TV Spotlight". Chester Chronicle. 1979-01-26. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  The article notes: "The Junior European Three Day Event is the subject of Horses Galore on Friday, January 26 (BBC1). Presenter Susan King joined the British team at Burghley where they were competing against 14 other countries. While there Susan talked to Bill Thompson, who builds the famous obstacles on the cross country section, Isabel Reid, who manages the junior team, and David Hunt, who trained three of them."
14. "Watch out for... Wednesday". Aldershot News. 1979-06-12. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  The article notes: "4.40 - 5.10 p.m. - Horses Galore. Tanya Larrigan is Britain's youngest international dressage rider and she has just been selected to represent Britain in the European Team Dressage Championships on her horse Salute. In the last programme of the series, Susan King meets Tanya and gets advice from her for some of the many viewers who have written in with queries."
15. "Watch out for... Wednesday". Aldershot News. 1979-05-15. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  The article notes: "4.40-5.05 p.m. - Horses Galore. Hay is a better fuel for transport than petrol for a surprising number of South London traders, as Susan King discovers. It's quite surprising how many street traders prefer a horse and cart to a delivery lorry. Jim Bellman has worked with horses since he was a boy and can well remember the days when the streets of London were crowded with horses delivering everything from milk to coal."
16. "Behind the scenes with Susan King". Reading Evening Post. 1979-08-18. Archived from the original on 2023-08-13. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Many of you will have seen the Horses Galore series on television. Now it has been turned into a book. But did you know that some of the series was made locally at Wokingham? This was the episode featuring competition involving the King family and their ponies. ... The episode at Wokingham featured their Welsh Mountain pony stallion — who has won so many trophies and rosettes that the family have trouble finding somewhere to put them all."
17. Belsey, James (1981-06-26). "The Best of Horses Galore". Bristol Evening Post. Archived from the original on 2023-08-13. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The Best Of Horses Galore (BBC-1, 5.5) sounds a bit like a mixture of the Derby, Grand National and Horse Of The Year Show. In reality it is Susan King returning with six specially compiled programmes including a selection of her favourite clips from four previous series shown between 1977 and 1979."
18. "TV and Radio Programmes for This Evening and ... Tomorrow Until Teatime". Evening Sentinel. 1981-06-26. Archived from the original on 2023-08-13. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The Best of Horses Galore. Susan King returns in the first of six specially compiled programmes all about horses and ponies. Tonight Susan rides through the snow in search of a rare Exmoor pony, meets the Banwen Pony Club, 1977 holders of the Prince Philip Cup, and sees a cross country rave in which "wheeled" horse power is tested against the four-leg- ged variety."
19. Hardcastle, Barbara (1979-08-23). "Facts About Show Jumping. Genevieve Murphy/Deutsch, £2.95 Horses Galore. Susan King Pelham, £3.95". Huddersfield Daily Examiner. Archived from the original on 2023-08-13. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Horses Galore, the book of the BBC TV series of the same name, offers a wide range of equestrian activity. Taking in the renowned Appleby Horse Fair, where gipsies gather from all parts of Great Britain, through the spectacular displays of the King's Troop, named by the late King George VI and retained by the wish of the Queen, the role of the circus horse, brewery drays still used in London by the famed Young's Brewery, there is something to satisfy every horse lover. Profusely illustrated by some fine photographs."
20. "Get Lost — by the seaside: what's on tonight". Reading Evening Post. 1981-06-26. Archived from the original on 2023-08-13. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Susan King returns in the first of six specially compiled programmes The Best of Horses Galore (BBC1, 5.05pm). The series, all about horses and ponies, includes Susan's favourite selection of films from the four series of Horses Galore shown in 1977, 1978 and 1979. The new series includes a wide selection of equestrian sports and activities in which everyone can take part, whether they own a pony or take lessons at their focal riding school."
21. "Horses Galore". The Bookseller. No. 3816. 1979-02-10. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via Internet Archive.
  The review notes: "This delightful book is a followup to the popular TV series of the same name, and in it Susan King covers some of the many topics which were featured in the shows. Subjects range from training a racehorse to the Horse of the Year Show. The book also takes a peep behind the scenes in the making of the show. Illustrated in colour and black and white."
22. "You ask us". The Sunday People. 1979-07-09. Archived from the original on 2023-08-13. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Title, please, of the music in BBC's Horses Galore series, writes D. Keane, of Stockport. Pulstar from the R.C.A. L.P. Albedo 0.39, by Vangelis."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Horses Galore to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I expanded and added sources to the article. Cunard (talk) 10:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so that some of these new sources can be evaluated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With the work Cunard has done, this article now passes WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Joker (character)#Alternative versions. I'm closing as Merge rather than a simple Redirect because currently there is really very little content in the paragraph readers are being directed to in the target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of Joker[edit]

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

Another unnecessary split from Joker (comics), that is 99% plot summary referenced to comic books. The topic seems to have no stand-alone WP:GNG. Arguably there is also OR issue here - who decides which versions of Joker are "alternative" or "redefined" ("the Joker has been represented in a variety of different stories that redefine elements of the character's appearance and personality")? I am not sure if there is anything that warrants merging or redirecting, but redirects are cheap. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it needs improving, not deleting, and that shouldn't be the default state and it's ridiculous to think it's an "unnecessary split" as if you could cram all those versions into the existing Joker article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- If you cannot cram, well, then the relevant policy is WP:CONTENTSPLIT: consideration must be given both to notability of the offshoot topic... If one or more of the topics is not notable on its own, it may be more appropriate to simply remove the material from Wikipedia than to create a new article. And what we have here is a notability-failing plot summary: see WP:NOTPLOT. What reliable, independent sources discuss the topic here ("Alternative versions of Joker")? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would be easy for someone to find sources for most of the entries here but to be clear they are sourced, you just don't like that they're sourced to comics. Plenty of websites cover comic books, particularly The Batman Who Laughs, Flashpoint, Injustice, White Knight, and Dark Knight versions (though to be clear I do enough on Wikipedia, I'm not going to go find those sources), but it's not worthy of deletion because of that, and frankly the time you've spent both creating this, replying to me, and posting on my talk page, could have covered that task. Be useful instead of just wasting time on saying that alternate versions of one of the most recognizable villains in popular culture can't be sourced and ignoring that people will, justifably, try to add all of these versions to the main article, where they cannot fit and editors will have little justification to remove them if sourced. Seriously, I spent my time making featured articles, you're running around nominating articles like Remi, Nobody's Girl (a 26 episode anime so hardly unnotable) for deletion instead of just improving them. You're not only wasting your time, you're wasting the time of all the editors you drag into this. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please mind WP:AGF and WP:NPA. And you seem to confuse me with User:Timtrent, the nom for Remi. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Joker (character), per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Besides violating WP:SIGCOV, a lot of this is WP:OR without a reliable definition of "alternate". The major appearances are already covered at the main article, and the minor appearances are largely unsourced, with nothing to WP:PRESERVE. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Piotrus' citation of CONTENTSPLIT is plainly misleading. That policy deals with "two or more distinct topics [!sharing] the samebase title, not spinoffs from a very long article on a notable topic. There is much critical commentary. 104.226.30.18 (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Joker (character)#Alternative versions in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE....especially as we need to put the history of Earth-Two's Joker somewhere on this website. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would very much like someone to tell me why this is not WP:OR, after which I will consider forming an opinion 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there's some coverage of the character and his various incarnations in Amazing Heroes, particularly around the publication of Crisis and its' aftermath, though there was stuff on the character throughout (there's a big spike in Batman & Joker articles in '89 around the Tim Burton film). There are a fair few issues on Internet Archive even though there probably shouldn't be. The latter is also true of Wizard, though they were very much more into Marvel and Image, but might be worth a look at for any shiny new 1990s versions. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BoomboxTestarossa It depends whether the coverage is "within universe" in a comic (etc) issue, or whether the coverage is an external and substantial commentary in multiple reliable secondary sources. The former produces either WP:OR o0r WP:SYNTH or both. The latter potentially verifies notability, not of the Joker per se, but of the topic of this article, the alternative versions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage isn't in-universe, they would be reliable secondary sources. That said I'm not schlepping through back issues (though Back Issue! would be another place to look) for a Big Two article or for an AfD. It's just an illustration that in many areas smashing stuff into Google doesn't really touch upon it. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: After analysing the content and the alleged references, I see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as making up in excess of 90% of this article. It's a great magazine article, because magazines require no verifiability. There is no WP:V here, and that is one of the major tenets of Wikiipedia. Instead there are pseudo-references to issues of Batman comics. These are not independent of the topic. Remember,the article is not about the character The Joker. It is about the variations, the alternative versions.
To remind us what is required: We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
I do not see references that meet these tough criteria. I only see OR and SYNTH. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Joker (character)#Alternative versions - There doesn't appear to be any significant coverage in reliable sources of the overall concept of alternate versions of the Joker that shows that the topic is notable enough on its own, and the vast majority of the versions listed here are extremely minor, one-shot characters, if even that. Any versions that actually have reliable sources that would indicate any kind of notability should be covered on main article. Since there are currently no non-primary sources in this article, a simple Redirect is sufficient. Rorshacma (talk) 06:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Joker (character)#Alternative versions. With the Joker being a popular fictional character that gets reinvented and reimagined with every generation, there is basically an infinite amount of alternative versions of him -- to many to mention all. Joker (disambiguation) links to the notable ones with articles; the others can be covered briefly in (or omitted from) the character's main article. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Barnes & Barnes.

Fish heads, fish heads, roly poly fish heads.
Fish heads, fish heads, eat them up...yum! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Haimer[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Known almost exclusively for a single song, so WP:BIO1E perhaps applies. Otherwise fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, United States of America, and California. UtherSRG (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Barnes & Barnes - I see no harm in moving the content to the band article under a new section or paragraph, but agree that the individual's notability isn't sufficient to warrant a standalone article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect There is a couple of obits but they look more like profiles. The duo is notable, so a simple redirect. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 08:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to An Se-uk. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An Se-wook[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ATHLETE Karnataka (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new sources below. AGF and trusting they show the significant coverage claimed. Giant Snowman 07:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources have been found @GiantSnowman. He was the joint head coach of the united Korean youth football team in 1991 which received significant, continuing coverage. Here are multiple instances of coverage: [30], [31], [32], [33], etc. :3 F4U (they /it) 12:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, GiantSnowman, the sources from above are definitely not SIGCOV: 1) merely repeats what Ahn said with zero coverage of him N; 2) is a single trivial mention N; 3) is a rehash of a press release from NK stating it had given Ahn an award, with no SIGCOV of him to boot N; 4) is a trivial mention plus a quote in a news broadcast transcript N. JoelleJay (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay I apologize regarding the first source, I was under the impression that SIGCOV of his coaching strategy was equivalent to SIGCOV of An himself. I've found a more in-depth source about Coach An himself [34]. I'm sure I can find more, there's a lot of sourcing on him. :3 F4U (they /it) 13:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please find more sources, and in future do not present trivial sources as significant. Giant Snowman 15:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - If he represented during the 1976 Olympics, I'd say he's notable. More citations on him and his coverage is definitely needed though IowaBird (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commment I've just discovered something. An Se-uk <- This is the same guy. The articles need to merged together. :3 F4U (they /it) 15:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The merged title should be An Se-uk following MOS:KO which states that we should use MR romanization when there's no accepted English common name. :3 F4U (they /it) 15:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think An Se-uk should be a redirect to here, Since this page has more info IowaBird (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per F4U. Clearly significant figure in North Korean football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources showing GNG being passed (threshold for 1970s North Korean footballers must be taken into account), and merge with An Se-uk as it is the same guy. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Three deletes, four keeps, and a merge - I don't see a clear consensus here. Relisting for a second time to hopefully garner some more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 11:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, there's already a clear consensus for a merge because the two articles are about the same person. Really what we're discussing here is whether or not both An Se-wook and An Se-uk should be deleted. :3 F4U (they /it) 18:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article in the Korea wikipedia only mentions him, but because he was the coach of a combined Korean team in 1991, he comes up a lot, and not as a WP:BLP1E. He's also from a place where it's difficult to get information about. This will probably always be a stub, but there's enough out there for a good encyclopedia article. It should also be merged - I have no opinion on which article gets merged where, just that we maintain all the information here. SportingFlyer T·C 20:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd like to see if there is more support for a Merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Liz: if the result is keep, you can close it now. A merger will have to be performed, it's not a question of discussion, there are currently two articles for the same person. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly this. I did already state this above, but we currently have two duplicative articles about the same person (because his name can be romanized in more than one way). :3 F4U (they /it) 13:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Óscar Barros[edit]

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

Stats stub with no evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. In searches, the best that I could find was Jornal Nordeste, a transfer announcement in a regional newspaper that merely lists his former clubs and doesn't provide much else. Such coverage is usually considered insufficient at AfD and, in any case, multiple good sources are needed to pass GNG. Other than that, I found some brief coverage of his stint in Finland but it's also below the standard; see MP and Palloliitto. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, I wasn't sure, but from having a look it didn't look like he ever played full professional game. Seems to be a semi-pro player. Agree with nomination. Govvy (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 clear among uninvolved editors. Star Mississippi 23:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cannamedical Pharma[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References are routine business news, PR and interviews for this brochure advertising article. scope_creep^Talk 10:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, and Germany. — Karnataka ^talk 11:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Germans take their pot seriously. Here's a link to the Cannamedical section of their de:Liste der in Deutschland erhältlichen medizinischen Hanfsorten article. This salacious link is from de:Fabian Thylmann. This is an AfD from 4 years ago: de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/24. Februar 2019#Cannamedical Pharma (gelöscht). This is a deletion review this year de:Wikipedia:Löschprüfung/Archiv/2023/Woche 17#Cannamedical Pharma (erl.); Cannamedical remains deleted. Germany have medical marijuana magazine that seems reliable and has a number of stories about Cannamedical. There's also this Australian story.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was drafting a contribution to the first AfD when it was closed and the article soft-deleted. While the given sources verify that this is a firm going about its distribution business in its market, I was unconvinced that anything indicated it to be of encyclopaedic notability. Against that, though, were the reference items from FAZ and Handelsblatt: to me these provide verification, but I felt that others may regard such coverage as immediately indicative of notability. I also thought of suggesting draftification of this paid WP:SPA article, but that would shunt the dilemma about notability onto the AfC reviewer. The links posted above by A. B. are interesting in that context, as I see these sources were considered when the request to restore the deleted de.wiki article was rejected in June. AllyD (talk) 07:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - References do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. In reference to draftification, I review regularly at AfC and would not have sent this to mainspace. Would suggest allowing the AfD to run its course instead. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the refs I looked at earlier aren't quite enough for notability.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article cites various reliable secondary sources such as Handelsblatt and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. These sources are known for high-quality journalism. Please don't mistake them with "routine business news" or "PR", because that is what they are definitely not. --Allianzwhen (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Allianzwhen, as stated on the WP:DISCLOSE page which I previously linked from your Talk page, "As you have a conflict of interest, you must ensure everyone with whom you interact is aware of your paid status, in all discussions on Wikipedia pages within any namespace." AllyD (talk) 06:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So is a WP:COI editor, then with no interest in following or understanding consensus based notability policy. scope_creep^Talk 07:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the two refs above:

Ref 1 [35] This is article built on an interview of Henn, with an image Henn from the company, with information from the company. Its it not independent. It fails WP:ORGIND.

Ref 2 [36] Ref 11 in the article. This is PR plain and simple. It states from Henn "We don’t get to see our goods here in the offices. It is delivered directly to a high-security warehouse and shipped from there," It is not independent. It fails WP:ORGIND,. Both of these are classic PR.

Both these references fail WP:NCORP. We will look at the rest of the references shortly. scope_creep^Talk 23:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I find this discussion strongly discouraging, and the assumptions that you have made and brought forward are concerning, to be honest.

I understand why you want paid editors to disclose, and I believe it's a reasonable thing to do. This is why I disclosed the paid editing according to WP:DISCLOSE. The disclosure should be obvious to the educated editor because it immediately pops up when one hovers over my username with his mouse cursor. I'm conviced that you all are reasonable, knowledgable editors who understand this. Please don't overinterpret Wikipedia's WP:DISCLOSE policy too much by asking paid editors who have disclosed in accordance with the ToU to disclose again every single time they make edits.
Please also note that not every single paid editor has "no interest in following or understanding consensus based notability policy". I am well aware of Wikipedia's core principle: It's an encyclopaedia that depicts, in a neutral manner, what is believed to be established knowledge.
I strongly recommend reassessing the references that I have provided:

The Handelsblatt article includes information derived from an interview of Henn, but it is not based on information from the company. German-language newspaper-like sources don't just copy-paste what they are told, they actually do journalism properly. The data Handelsblatt have used is actually from GKV Gamsi, and that is exactly what the article discloses. The photograph of Henn is obviously licenced from Cannamedical because that makes a lot of sense considering German copyright law. Cannamedical may allow free use of that photograph for journalistic purposes, and this way it is much easier for Handelsblatt to use a decent picture. Do you expect them to have their own photographer who visits eveyone for a quick photoshoot? I trust you know that this would be highly unrealistic.
May I please beg your pardon regarding the FAZ? You are saying that FAZ's article is "PR plain and simple". Sorry, I strongly disagree. It should be immediately obvious to any knowledgable person that the FAZ article is not "PR plain and simple" because it is behind a paywall. Nobody in the right mind puts PR behind a paywall. It would have been honest and I would have appreciated if you had said or disclosed or noted that the FAZ article is behind a paywall. I don't wish to allege that you haven't read the FAZ article, but I hope it is understandable why I am in doubt regarding this.

FAZ have included a direct quote from Henn, yes, but they put it into context and evaluate it. That is what good sources do, they depict what one party says, and what another party says, compare that, evaluate it and put it into context. This is how journalism works. You must not assume that this direct quote is depicted as "the truth" by FAZ, and I assume that every reasonable Wikipedia editor knows this. FAZ are one of the most, if not the most reliable German-language newspaper source, they are, if you will, the "German New York Times". They don't do PR.

WP:CORPDEPTH includes examples of substantial coverage, and in this case we have got "ongoing media coverage focusing on [an] organisation", so Cannamedical is notable.
Note that the article's original AfD nomination was a violation of Wikipedia's WP:SOCK policy. A German Wikipedia editor logged out of his account to nominate the article for deletion which is obvious from the way the article was proposed for deletion. The actions resemble exactly how on the German language version of Wikipedia an article is proposed for deletion, and the reasoning was typical of how a German Wikipedia editor would propose an article for deletion. It's highly problematic that nobody figured this and that the article was treated as having been prodded.

Regards, --Allianzwhen (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The references discussed above have no "Independent Content" and the facts/information are all attributed to people affiliated with the topic company. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and I know what kind of source (WP:SIRS-compliant) is needed here. The core problem becomes apparent when realising that basically everyone's been saying that the sources don't tick WP:SIRS's independence criteria, which is incorrect. The sources discussed above are independent per WP:SIRS, but that may be hard to see. I'm not even blaming anyone here, I know how the perception of FAZ and Handelsblatt not being independent sources comes to be, and I feel it needs some explaining.

The fact that Handelsblatt or FAZ have interviewed Henn does not mean that Henn uses these sources as a vehicle to convey a message to the reader, or that the sources would even let him do that. Handelsblatt and FAZ are known for their high-quality journalism, and the articles do not include information or facts attributed to people affiliated with the company without fact checking. If you were able to read these sources thoroughly, you'd see that they are in fact not interviews, and that they include only what Wikipedia describes as "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking". The sources (i.e., the writers) aren't affiliated with Cannamedical in any way. If, in an FAZ interview, an interviewed person lies, the FAZ are going to write that straight into their article(s) as they are known for fact checking. They express whether or not they believe (based on fact checking) that claims made in an interview are factually correct.

The interesting bit here is that the FAZ article actually expresses doubts, discusses legal issues and gives a lot of background information. And it is at this point that I need to ask a serious question: Do you comprehend that Ref 2 refers to the source, but only shows one sixth of its contents? Reading FAZ or Handelsblatt requires a paid subscription as they aren't PR platforms. I honestly wonder how anyone can assess a source by reading only two out of twelve paragraphs. How would you know whether that source has "no independent content" if you cannot even read 85 per cent of it? Please do me a favour and think of this before making premature judgements. Thank you.

Regards, --Allianzwhen (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a PR. scope_creep^Talk 15:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going through the articles (the pieces I can see) and *everything* about the company is attributed to Henn. You say its not an interview - it is. He was interviewed. The articles recount the details of the interview. You say that these statements come with "fact checking" - where does it say that or is this a big assumption on your part? Just FYI, most times the obligations for "fact checking" is to diligently repeat what was said, not to check the veracity of what was said. In this example we're not examining whether the publisher or journalist are independent (as per "functional independence") but whether the information is independent (as per "intellectual independence"). The information must be "clearly attributed to a source unaffiliated to the subject" but all I can see is information attributed to Henn. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've made an important statement: the pieces I can see. About 5/6 of the source's material is behind a paywall. The FAZ article is not a 200-word PR release, it is an in-depth article about Cannamedical Pharma that extends way further than just 200 words. Nobody puts PR behind a paywall.

FAZ's article is also not an interview. FAZ have interviewed Henn, and they have cited some bits he said in their article; but that does not make the article an interview. The article just happens to cite Henn right at the beginning which might give the impression that it's an interview, but it is not. The FAZ are known for their fact checking, and they obviously don't do what you describe as "diligently repeat what was said". That would be indicative of poor quality journalism.

I also know what you refer to as "intellectual independence". Look, the FAZ article cites Henn directly or indirectly on various occasions. But it's not a deep interview or something like that. The article would have worked without citing Henn. Whenever something he has said is used, it is put into context, and everything is explained properly. Henn's "sayings" are not conveyed as facts or "the truth". The article is the author's original text and has intellectual independence. Since the article discusses Cannamedical Pharma, it just made some sense to cite Henn here and there. But that's all.

Regards, --Allianzwhen (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're making incorrect assumptions about what is being said and I don't think you've correctly grasped the GNG/NCORP requirements (which don't exist on German language Wikipedia anyway). Lets leave aside the paywalled article for the moment (and I'll sign up for the 30day trial if it becomes necessary) since we need *multiple* articles that meet the criteria for establishing notability and I've yet to see even one. Start with the Handelsblatt article. Please point to any paragraph which you say meets ORGIND/CORPDEPTH requirements, that is, contains in-depth (about the company) (CORPDEPTH) original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject (ORGIND). I've looked and in my opinion this is regurgitated company bumpf that attributes the information (several times) to Hann. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Following from my Comment at the outset of this discussion, I feel that for an article on a firm to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability, more is needed than verifiable statements that at a particular time it had a quarter of a local import/manufacture/distribution market, be that in cannabis, Kimchi, cogs, or whatever. Proportionate presence would be fine for a Semdor / Cannamedical entry on a categorised business listing site under Medical cannabis suppliers > Germany >, but an encyclopaedia is distinct from that, and I see no claim to notability here (and although each wiki evolves its own inclusion criteria, the rejection at de.wiki is informative). There is also no article (here or on de.wiki) on the Semdor Pharma parent, and, trying an alternative perspective, the articles on Medical cannabis and Cannabis in Germany describe these markets in a non-vendor-specific manner, so there appears to be no appropriate redirect target. AllyD (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ^Complex/_Rational 15:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per Capita[edit]

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

Article reads like an advertisement or promotion. Makes loads of unsubstantiated claims which aren’t backed up by third-party sources.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with originally stated reasons. Seems to have been created by an individual who could be assumed to have some ties to the group (admittedly, back in 2006), and the organization does not seem to have significant coverage in any sense past that point. While some citations are present, they seem to be so passing as to not confer notability (ie. other orgnizations presenting information that 'aligns with Per Capita research' or is 'likely influenced by Per Capita findings'). A MINOTAUR (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Potential WP:PROMO. Most of the sources are primary. LibStar (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ^Complex/_Rational 15:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vendry Mofu[edit]

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

Not sufficiently notable for a standalone article. Per this RfC, participation-based criteria for footballers are considered problematic and not usually sufficient for establishing notability. Accordingly, WP:BASIC applies, and that standard is not met by this article subject. A WP:BEFORE search found plenty of database entries, some passing mentions, but no significant coverage in reliable publications. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 14:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. I'm sure Indonesian sources exist, but I can't see any. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources below which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seriously... @GiantSnowman:, I found [37], [38], [39], , [40], [41], [42], many many more Indonesian sources. Clearly singificna tifgure in Indonesian football, 132+ appearances in the fully pro Indonesian top flight which receives hella media coverage, and 10+ appearances for national team. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly passes GNG with significant coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Das osmnezz. Govvy (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - The Republika and Tribun Lampung sources linked above are probably just enough to be significant coverage as they each summarize Mofu's career. Jogurney (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bijan Barati[edit]

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

Fails notability. He never played for the senior national team. only played for the youth level teams. yes he played for some pro clubs but that's not enough to makes him notable. also you rarely can find anything about him in English or even Persian sources. Sports2021 (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Schiedam train accident[edit]

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

Not sufficiently notable under WP:NEVENT. As pointed out by Rosguill, this event fails to meet WP:LASTING. Assertions that it fulfills this standard should be backed up by reliable independent sources. The effects currently described in the article are not of "historical significance", as required by that guideline. Other criteria don't apply; I don't see evidence of widespread impact covered in diverse sources, nor enduring historical significance. This is the kind of routine event described by WP:EVENTCRIT#4. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 14:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Transportation, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Schiedam train disaster, an actually notable incident from 120 years after this one. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 15:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an easy pass of WP:LASTING, WP:SIGCOV, WP:NEXIST and WP:EVENTCRIT #2. In and out of the article and are plenty of SIGCOV, V, and IS sources that run up to the present. Unsure how the article neverthless could have been nominated. gidonb (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you identify which sources establish NLASTING in your view? The only accessible source postdating the accident by more than a week is this brief coverage. Are you confusing coverage of the 1976 disaster for coverage of the 1856 incident? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No not confusing anything. I'll get to that soon! gidonb (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See more below. gidonb (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gidonb. But rename to 1856 Schiedam train accident to avoid ambiguity with the 1976 disaster. Strange that the latter far more notable incident has a much shorter article! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plus one for the rename! I guess where someone took more time, there is more text. Both events are notable. gidonb (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The accident happened between Schiedam and Rotterdam; after Schiedam near Delfshaven. Delfshaven is a borough of Rotterdam. So a more precise title would be 1956 Delfshaven rail accident or 1956 Rotterdam rail accident. 109.37.150.153 (talk) 09:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the 1856 retitling in the event of a keep outcome, but the available two sources that postdate the 1850s both refer to it as an incident at Schiedam in their brief coverage, so this further suggestion seems ORish. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 12:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at WP:Lasting is written: “Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation.” -> this is the case in this accident: the accident resulted in exerting pressure on the directors on the Railways. This resulted in multiple safety adjustements that still exists and now seen as “completely normal”. In addition (while there is even still coverage recently) it’s not a rule that there must still be coverage decades after an event “It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect.” There was still aftermath coverage of this accident for at least a month. A last point, the Dutch NOS listed it in 2012 as one the 15 main train accidents ever with victims in Dutch history. (see here) 109.37.150.153 (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you link to or otherwise identify this recent coverage you mention? Most of what you're saying seems to be original research. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 09:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- All what I say is sourced in the article. As I said, recent coverage is not needed per wp:Lasting, but see the link by the Rosguill above and the NOS-link. 109.37.150.153 (talk) 09:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Rename per Necrothesp's reasoning. This is a well-sourced and reasonably well-written and encyclopaedic article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Amsterdam–Haarlem–Rotterdam railway unless someone provides sources to demonstrate secondary SIGCOV or provides a source that explicitly connects this accident with industry reforms. If neither of those exist, then this is just one of the millions of non-notable things that happened that year and got published in newspapers. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that most of the 1856 (secondary) newspapers articles “addresses the topic directly and in detail” (SIGCOV). Especially for that era where there were much less pages of newspapers as nowadays. 109.37.150.153 (talk) 07:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has been provided several times over. gidonb (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being curious I started searching for more sources. I see there was still coverage of the accident at least up to November (3 months after the accident). This sources gives more details of the (formerly unknown) victims. I added some extra information in the Victims section. 109.37.150.153 (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This was the first major railroad disaster in the Netherlands. That, the extensive coverage at the time, and the fact that the coverage continues to date, e.g. [43] and examples brought and talked down (yikes!) above, make the event notable. This very disaster brought change to the Dutch railroads: lights on the last car were introduced after the disaster (although dropped for a while, later), and the impact on the awareness of the hazards of standing trains are connected in the literature directly to THIS VERY disaster. The fact that there was an even bigger train diasaster in or near Schiedam does NOT justify deletion. There is no case for deletion. gidonb (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prabhakar Chaudhary (IPS)[edit]

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

Not enough notability. Nothing of wide coverage, controversies, positive reaction or otherwise in media. Nor holding a significant post in control of a large area of administration (for example Commissioner of Police (India) or of similar). All I can see is various postings and transfers as well as minor cases of disputes. Fails WP:GNG in my opinion, as of now. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Police, and India. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine coverage of a police person, who gets transferred a lot, is not notable. Coverage is of police actions he was involved with as is routine. Nothing for GNG Oaktree b (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notable/significant events seem present or even really hint at notability. A MINOTAUR (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn; the sources provided below look good to me. I'm not sure why I missed them during my WP:BEFORE search, but thanks for finding them! (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 13:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manouche[edit]

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

The relevant notability guideline is WP:GNG, and that's not met here in my opinion. Source 1 provides a lot of coverage in the context of jazz; more on that below. Source 2 doesn't mention the term "Manouche", and source 3 provides only passing mentions. There are two plausible redirect targets here, Gypsy jazz and Romani people in France, though I lean toward the latter. I would blank and redirect, but the recent creation of this article indicates that this would be contentious. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 12:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and France. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. There are sources in French [44] an ethnological review, [45] disease history in the population and [46] study of the grammar/language syntax used. Oaktree b (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Iskandar323 (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maghāriya[edit]

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

This is page has a subject that has no little potential to grow beyond a stub (based on the unreliable/trivial current sourcing, and the results of WP:BEFORE searches). The main source currently supporting it, the Jewish Virtual Library, is unreliable, and itself covers it in a listicle. The only other mentions of the subject anywhere are extremely trivial, typically just mentioned in a list alongside other minor sects, such as in the in this source. This does not provide any scope for the meaningful expansion of the topic, which ultimately fails to establish its notability due to the sheer triviality of its coverage. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: Suitable and verifiable supporting tertiary sourcing was found. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Judaism. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is page has a subject that has no potential to grow beyond a stub. How can you possibly know that? Sects of major religions are certainly notable. Sourcing is sparse, but sufficient. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: What source have you found that suggests otherwise? The only source with substantial coverage is an unreliable one. Every other mention I have seen is in trivial list form. What sources have you found that establish WP:GNG, and offer the possibility of anything more than a perpetual stub? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some religions have hundreds if not thousands of minor sects. I fail to see how the blanket inclusion of sects, no matter how minor or unheard of, actually conforms with the notability guidelines. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source you claim to be unreliable itself lists a number of sources. Have you checked all of these? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked the legible 1967 one, and it fails verification. I haven't delved much into the foreign language 19th-century sources or those simply without any titles (or pages) at all. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's not a major topic, but a Google books search brings up quite a lot of mentions, other encyclopaedic works have chosen to give them at least some mention, and I don't think we should delete based on the idea that the sources are in foreign languages and/or 18th century; some fields of research evolve slowly, and there is no obligation to publish knowledge in English. There is also some discussion of them half way down this blog-thread at earlywritings.com[47] where more sources might also be gleaned by a future editor. They're not huge, but it looks to me as though they have their small and documented corner of theological history, and we should reflect that. Elemimele (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first source on the blog is the same as the Jewish Virtual Library material, which appears to be plagiarized from the Encyclopaedia Judaica given the presence of disembodied and unlinked notes such as (For the modern period see *Subbotniki; *Somrei Sabat.). However, if this is the case, it would seem to suggest that there is a solid Encyclopaedia Judaica entry, though obviously taking the word of a plagiarizing unreliable source on the matter is itself a dubious proposition. The second source interestingly presents a different spelling, the Magarites, for what would appear to be the same group, although no source I can find seems to mention both names in tandem, making it WP:SYNTH-y to assume they are the same. There are certainly a few other snippets of information floating around the internet, if not yet really tied together by any modern source into a cohesive secondary analysis. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Jewish Virtual Library page doesn't plagiarize the Encyclopaedia Judaica, it explicitly states that it's reproducing the Encyclopedia Judaica: "Source: Encyclopaedia Judaica. © 2008 The Gale Group. All Rights Reserved." We shouldn't have ended up at AFD for this. Jahaza (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's an unreliable source, so it cannot be relied upon to faithfully reproduce anything, even when it is claiming to breach the copyright of material it has no rights to (a problem in its own right, and a reason why gunrel may actually be overly generous for the JVL). The lack of any guarantee of information fidelity is sort of the point with unreliable sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once you knew that there might be an Encyclopaedia Judaica article, you should have looked for it before listing it for deletion. The article is available in a free and properly licensed version from Encyclopedia.com[48]. You could have easily discovered this by visiting the Encyclopaedia Judaica Wikipedia page. This is not the first time you've listed Judaism topics for deletion that turn out to have major reference work coverage. Jahaza (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jahaza WP:AGF - useful information that since 2022 much of the 2007 edition is at encyclopedia.com - useful information that you could have easily delivered in a civil way. Try that next time. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If necessary, can be merged to Jewish religious movements. But I don't really see a problem with short articles. All good encyclopedias have them. Note that Google distinguishes beween ā and a. Srnec (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It turns out that there is a Jewish Encyclopedia entry for this, which is a tertiary public domain source that can serve as an adequate anchor for the page to replace the unreliable JVL. Given that this source exists, it's surprising that it was not used in the first place. I will now be withdrawing the nomination. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is solid (if short). It does not meet any criteria in WP:DEL-REASON. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Iskandar323 (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bana'im[edit]

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

This is page has a subject that has no little potential to grow beyond a stub (based on the unreliable/trivial current sourcing, and the results of WP:BEFORE searches). The main source currently supporting it, the Jewish Virtual Library, is unreliable, and itself covers it in a listicle. The only other mentions of the subject anywhere are extremely trivial, typically just mentioned in a list alongside other minor sects, such as in the second source on the page. This does not provide any scope for the meaningful expansion of the topic, which ultimately fails to establish its notability due to the sheer triviality of its coverage. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: Suitable and verifiable supporting tertiary sourcing was found. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Judaism. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is page has a subject that has no potential to grow beyond a stub. How can you possibly know that? Sects of major religions are certainly notable. Sourcing is sparse, but sufficient. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same question as here. What source have you found that suggests otherwise? The only source with substantial coverage is an unreliable one. Every other mention is in trivial list form. What sources have you found that establish WP:GNG, and offer the possibility of this being anything more than a forever stub? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some religions have hundreds if not thousands of minor sects. I fail to see how the blanket inclusion of sects, no matter how minor or unheard of, actually conforms with the notability guidelines. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same answer! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing for this page is weaker still than the other one. There is not even the suggestion in the JVL material, wherever it comes from, that there is any contemporary scholarship on this. And no, I haven't read the 19th-century German books mentioned as references. I only found one other independent source, and that is this, which quotes the same primary text passage as the first paragraph as the JVL, which I suspect is the sole basis for information on the subject, i.e. one mention in one Jewish text. The JVL material suggests that there was a brief scholarly tussle over the etymology of the word at some point, and that's it. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maghāriya. Srnec (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It turns out that there is a Jewish Encyclopedia entry for this, which is a tertiary public domain source that can serve as an adequate anchor for the page to replace the unreliable JVL. Given that this source exists, it's surprising that it was not used in the first place. I will now be withdrawing the nomination. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is solid (if short). It does not meet any criteria in WP:DEL-REASON. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Suwon Samsung Bluewings. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suwon Samsung Bluewings Academy[edit]

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

Non-notable team playing in a non-notable league, this is not even a university team, its a school team. Also unsourced, it was sourced only to primary sources before I cleaned the article a couple of months ago, and the article was also not properly updated since 2012. They even included under-15 and under-12 players, which are completely non-notable. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Suwon Samsung Bluewings not independently notable. Giant Snowman 18:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete the material‎. However, neither is there a clear consensus for keeping it as a standalone or merging it. I'm loathe to kick the can down the road given the recent merger conversation, but this has been open for three weeks and I think this can now be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 23:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Epona (The Legend of Zelda)[edit]

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

The article's reception is mostly build up with trivia articles/sources like listicles and a bit of passing mentions from game reviews. Only one sigcov [49]. Cannot find more per WP:BEFORE somehow. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per other commenters, though I may be inclined to change my vote depending on how the argument swings. What's presented here plus some selective bits and bobs from the current article should be enough to justify an article, but admittedly it's weaker than something like Midna or Navi. Pokelego999 (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Merge While I certainly don't blame @Greenish Pickle! for finding some fault and question in the article, I do feel that the character barely ekes out enough unique notability to the development and gameplay of various very popular video games to have a page. However I feel that this issue could be somewhat amended by cleaning up the Characters of The Legend of Zelda - which comes off (to me) as a bit of an excessively detailed mess, and merging much of the contents of this Epona (The Legend of Zelda) article into it. I think it would benefit from being cleaned up and pruned to something more like the Starship Enterprise page, with more focus but fewer entities.A MINOTAUR (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we very rarely give fictional animal characters their own article (we'd much prefer if the fictional character in the article's topic of question be human). No matter how "notable". The OP is just doing his/her due diligence.Americanfreedom (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is pure IDONTLIKEIT. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR: No, It's pure, WP:POINT. I consider Epona to be just as notable as Zelda, Link, Ganondorf Etc and yet none of THOSE articles are up for deletion. If you're gonna smack me with a wiki-guideline at least smack me with the right one. Americanfreedom (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to keep it or delete it? QuicoleJR (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't expect that kind of rationale. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 00:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't had the chance to check for sources yet, but nothing here equates to a valid stance so far... Sergecross73 msg me 02:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.
Merge to Characters of The Legend of Zelda#Epona. Needless to say, "animals can't have articles" is flat out wrong (see Category:Individual animals) and Dogmeat (Fallout) which is clearly notable. Deletion is a total impossibility as there is an obvious ATD target. However, nominator seems to be accurate as there is possibly no significant coverage of Epona in reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by combining with Epona's Song. There are a number of secondary looking at that piece of music, like The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time - A Game Music Companion and Music Video Games - Performance, Politics, and Play, p. 95-96, making the song likely notable in its own right. I think it would be beneficial to treat that information within the context of our Epona article here. The topic Epona itself, next to the sources already in the article, is treated in 1001 Video Games You Must Play Before You Die, Retro Gamer 3/2020, p. 77, Naming Your Little Geek, p. 85, "Las Influencias Célticas en la Franquicia de Videojuegos The Legend of Zelda" and La musique dans Zelda (variously in combination with Epona's Song) throughout, in addition to many more shorter treatments. There is also this extended academic podcast, where I don't know the extent but where Epona appears right away in the abstract. So I think Epona is notable, and very surely notable if taken together with Epona's Song. Daranios (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
hmmmm Interesting. Not sure about this one. @Zxcvbnm WDYT about the sources of Epona's song? Does it help? GreenishPickle! (🔔) 10:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this means Epona the horse is notable, or Epona's Song is notable. It's not as though songs can't have their own Wiki articles. One relevant example is that Dragonborn (song) has an article, but the Dragonborn character does not. If it's the song, it would still mean this particular article would be redirected to the character list. But I will check the noted sources for the character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pinging the participants @Fieryninja, DecafPotato, and Klbrain: of the not-so-long-past merge discussion, in case they would like to give their input here. Daranios (talk) 10:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to Epona's song, there's an article about her functionality here [50]. Not sure if that counts? I also think that her role in Ocarina of Time's development was pretty important and that is stated in the development section. Fieryninja (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does count, great job on finding that 1st sigcov, thou I think it needs 2 more per WP:THREE and It feel like Epona's song is more notable than a horse itself. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 11:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's the kind of article I'd be fine with accepting if there are other good sources out there, but I'd be iffy about if it was the major thing the article was hinging on to prove Epona is notable. Most of it is about King of Red Lions rather than Epona herself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should note WP:THREE is merely an essay. If there's a truly awe-inspiring source on Epona, three may not even be necessary. But I don't think anyone has written a book on Epona that would render this discussion irrelevant. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I feel like Epona's song is tied into Epona's notability, and there are some okay sources tied to Epona. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The real-world & in-universe significance are somewhat debatable, but (unlike other Zelda characters with articles) this character will likely keep reappearing in the franchise and as merchandise, and the article already has a non-crufty size where it may pass as a WP:SPINOUT article. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge this is on the threshold of WP:SIGCOV. If there isn't a consensus that this passes WP:GNG then there is a clear WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Being "on the threshold of WP:SIGCOV" means it's not there yet. Maybe another week will help uncover the necessary sources that are requisite for a standalone article or there will be additional voices of support for a possible Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per previous vote. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Duplicate !vote. Black Kite (talk) 10:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Six keep votes and one delete (that is also an obvious WP:AADD), I know AfD is not a vote but this should not have been relisted. Kudos to Daranios for digging up all those sources. Some additional Japanese SIGCOV: 1 2 3 4 Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 11:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I checked every one of these to see if it would be enough to make me change my opinion. Unfortunately I am not sure I would call any of them significant. The first one is bringing to attention a single illustration but does not comment on Epona. The second is almost nothing, just someone blogging and asking where Epona is. The latter two have an equivalent article in English here, but it's a simple announcement of a Monster Hunter x Zelda collaboration. That particular DLC did not get any significant treatment in the gaming press beyond "it exists". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I basically agree the above analysis of the articles. Basically none of them directly and thoroughly discuss Epona. Milky Defer 03:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and a proposal: I did a quick search in Yahoo Japan for Japanese sources and the results were unsatisfactory. I would support a merge to general characters article. The above !votes noticed Epona's song. The song itself may not be notable enough for a standalone article, but I would propose an article like Music from The Legend of Zelda be created instead. Milky Defer 03:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Per the various reasons stated above. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that the sources provided here and in the article combine to show that the character is clearly notable. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I still can't see a consensus here, mainly because a number of the Keep comments are verging on (or simply just are) WP:ITSNOTABLE. Since the last re-listing I can't see any smoking gun for sourcing, so we'll give it one more week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep While this isn't a great article, as others have shown, there are reliable sources about the character that could be used to improve it.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 14:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Japanese sources have been somewhat discussed, but I feel that the delete/merge !votes have not yet looked into/explained why the secondary sources listed earlier should not in combination establish notability, even if you exclude content dealing mostly with Epona's Song. The fact that secondary sources have been put forward in my view distinguishes the keep !votes from mere WP:ITSNOTABLE statements. Daranios (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG.★Trekker (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Topia Rameka[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPCRIME. Non-notable person who now had some coverage because of allegations. Coverage before this event was sparse, and wouldn't have warranted an article. To create one now because of allegations goes against WP:BLPCRIME. Fram (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New Zealand. Fram (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Clearly fails GNG. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's an influential figure within the public service. The page will cover his public service as well as his latest issues. The page has literally only been up for a few hours, it's churlish to be so hasty. Keep Aubernas (talk) 10:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I think Fram is right here that it isn't appropriate to create an article about a living person purely on the basis of unproven allegations, per WP:BLPCRIME. As for the above comment about what the article creator would like to include, well, it already needs to be covered in reliable secondary sources to be viable content. This person does not appear sufficiently notable outside of this to justify having an article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPCRIME is completely irrelevant. He's not been accused of any crimes at all. It would make just as much sense if I mentioned WP:BRAR.

Why is everyone here so officious all the time? Haven't you got better things to worry about? I made this page and I think it serves a purpose. Only one of you is from New Zealand, and yet you're all making these judgements about relevance. I actually think both Rameka and Jeremy Lightfoot should both have articles. Just forget about this - more news is going to come in over the following days, and I'll finish writing the article I started. Aubernas (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, keep, and keep. This is an important development. Several major newspapers and news sites in New Zealand have written about it.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/corrections-deputy-chief-topia-rameka-quits-amid-concerns-about-conduct/452KUV2TNBCZZJRMLXLWBTLG5U/

https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/08/15/corrections-deputy-chief-exec-resigned-amid-conduct-allegations/

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/corrections-deputy-left-after-behaviour-claims

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300950316/inappropriate-behaviour-allegations-before-corrections-leaders-shock-resignation Aubernas (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best this is still a WP:BLP1E. Some sources but WP:GNG likely not met since they are WP:ROUTINE. SportingFlyer T·C 11:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would a deputy chief executive of the correctional service be notable? I'm unfamiliar with the NZ civil service, seems trivial to my eyes, but I'm not !voting yet. Oaktree b (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's not enough. Some do, such as Simon Murdoch, Warren Tucker, Bruce Ferguson, Ashley Bloomfield, and Una Jargose. Jeremy Lightfoot should have his own page. This is catch-22. How can we be told that we can't make articles about public servants because there aren't enough, despite the fact they get deleted any time anyone tries to make one? Aubernas (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the nominator's deletion rationale is right on the button. To answer Oaktree's question, CEOs of the main government departments would generally get enough coverage for GNG to be met, but none of the departments would be big or important enough that deputies would generally get over the GNG hurdle. The biggest department of them all would be MBIE but when I look at the 2018/19 deputies, I'd say none of them would be notable. Schwede 66 03:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete based on the explanation above. Non-notable career otherwise; supposed crime that did or didn't happen isn't helping notability.Oaktree b (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Have you read any of the articles? He's not been accused of any crimes at all. WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply here. Aubernas (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Behavioural claims suggests something done to another employee that violates the employer's harassment policy, which may or may not be a criminal matter. That's why we used the work "supposed". Oaktree b (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Necromancer (disambiguation). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Necromancer (novella)[edit]

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

Lacks reviews and critical analysis, so it fails WP:NBOOK. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Necromancer (disambiguation)#Literature.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 14:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wasn't able to find any reviews or any other coverage in reliable sources. In the absence of any sources at all, there's no real benefit in redirecting to the author's article. Don't redirect to Necromancer (disambiguation) as none of the works listed there are novellas, making a redirect potentially confusing. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per WP:G4‎. Deor (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keyword Tool (website)[edit]

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

This software product has been mentioned by the forbes & telegraph UK but doesn’t have any independent article that discusses the importance of the software failed WP:GNG Autograph (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Software, and Websites. Autograph (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment seems to be a recreation of Keyword Tool which was deleted two weeks ago at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Keyword_Tool_(2nd_nomination) Oblivy (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kiany Vroman[edit]

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

Outright unable to find any WP:GNG. Article was created by me at a time that WP:NFOOTY existed - he made one single appearance (not even 90 minutes) for Club NXT two years ago in Belgium's second division, but nothing since. I could not find any articles whatsoever online. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belgium. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer T·C 11:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tracey Milburn[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources I could find include this, which offers some coverage, but is partly a primary source with a lot of the content being straight quotes, and this, which just states that she committed to Pepperdine back when she was in high school, and does not offer significant coverage. The rest of the sources on the article itself are just passing mentions, except this, which is a primary source from UCLA itself. Overall, does not pass GNG and does not warrant an individual article. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and California. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree to above. Sources do not offer significant coverage or are primary. IcanandIwillwatchme (talk) 07:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. While the LA Times piece on her UCLA and high school career is useful, I don't see consistent coverage that would allow a GNG pass. Jogurney (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Underachievers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AK the Savior[edit]

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

I don't see any articles covering this member of the duo specifically. Seems quite likely to fail GNG. DemonDays64 (talk•contribs) 05:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. DemonDays64 (talk•contribs) 05:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the musical group, seems notable, I don't see much for this person alone for notability in sourcing. The group has had some chart success and seems to be covered in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Underachievers.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 14:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Risian[edit]

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

Fails GNG, even if his record allows him to barely pass NSPORT. No RS discuss him in any detail Mach61 (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I checked news, the news archive, books, scholar, and the Wikipedia Library. For news, I get 5 hits, with only 1 discussing Michal specifically and it fails the GNG criteria. I get no hits in the news archive, no hits on the Library, and a single parsable hit on scholar that discusses an entirely different free diver. I even tried searching with Michal Rišian. —Sirdog (talk) 05:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Czech Republic. Shellwood (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted‎. G5 was applied. (non-admin closure) —Alalch E. 21:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Selva Vinayagar Temple[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability; almost all sources are from the organization's website. Note: this article was created through a cut-and-paste move from Draft:Selva Vinaaayagar Temple, which had been previously declined at AfC for notability and WP:NPOV issues. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Hinduism, and United Kingdom. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice, assuming a neutral, reliably sourced article can be written on the topic. SportingFlyer T·C 09:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.—Alalch E. 16:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting a speedy close as nominator; the creator of this article was blocked for sockpuppeting and I have tagged it under CSD G5. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Siheung Daeya station[edit]

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

Per WP:NTRAINSTATION, "Train stations have no inherent notability and are not presumed notable for simply being train stations, but may be notable if they satisfy the WP:GNG criteria, the criteria of another subject-specific notability guideline, or other criteria within this notability guideline." This article does not appear to meet general notability guidelines (unless perhaps the Korean-language articles bring to light notability). A Google search has provided no additional sources to prove notability. ETA: Apologies for not bundling AfDs.Significa liberdade (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and South Korea. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wonjong station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Sinhyeon station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Siheung City Hall station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Siu station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Wonsi station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Seonbu station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Dalmi station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Siheung Neunggok station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.

Keep. The article already has 2 references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One of which doesn't even mention the station and the other with only a couple paragraphs describing a naming dispute. Did you even read the sources? JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Seohae Line#Stations per WP:NTRAINSTATION and WP:GNG. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a few sources regarding expansion of the station. In addition, the sources I supplied noted a fourth exit under construction; sources regarding its opening/delay should exist but we need someone fluent in Korean to make a better search query than what I did (only searched the korean station name). Jumpytoo Talk 08:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jumpytoo: Both of the sources are just routine coverage. Unless there's anything else that suggests notability, I still believe redirecting is the best option. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In general, railway stations with lots of passenger traffic are likely to be notable. Further digging by other editors is likely to find enough references to demonstrate notability for each of the South Korean metro stations that are being discussed. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSTBESOURCES, And what is "lots of passenger traffic", sounds like a vague criterion. LibStar (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Seohae Line#Stations. The keep !votes presented so far are quite weak. LibStar (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cites added by Eastmain. –Davey2010^Talk 15:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the additional sources added, which is sufficient to pass WP:GNG. JaventheAldericky (talk) 04:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see a consensus to Keep this article based on "cites added" but looking at the article, I can't see that any sources have been added and none have been brought up in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for consistency. The refs added seem to be http://www.kyeongin.com/main/view.php?key=20200101010000032 and http://www.shtimes.kr/news/article.html?no=8127. They look alright (based on machine translation). If others such as Sinhyeon station and Wonjong station were closed as keep then I suppose this should be as well, otherwise the whole group should probably all be reopened again. - Indefensible (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This subject meets WP:GNG based on references in the article at this moment. 3 of the 4 references provide SIGCOV. One discusses in depth the naming of the station in 2018, two discuss in depth varying aspects of the opening of a third entrance to the station in late 2019 —siro χ o 04:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Andrew Johnson. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Johnson (father of Andrew Johnson)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article fails WP:GNG. While he has been mentioned in several books as a result of his presidential son, notability is not inherited and WP:SIGCOV still applies. Information currently in this article can and already is included in his son's article.

A previous AfD four years ago ended in no consensus; the mentioned sparse newspaper coverage there of his saving drowning sailors runs into WP:BIO1E problems. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and North Carolina. — Karnataka ^talk 10:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article title demonstrates the problem. If we need to know he is the father of Andrew Johnson up front, it is because he is not independently notable. As notability is not inherited, there should not be an article. The relevant information is on the Andrew Johnson page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to Andrew Johnson. Folks have been suggesting making "Family of Andrew Johnson"-type articles in such situations as well, which seems like a very good idea here, so a WP:ATD would be beneficial to preserve history. —siro χ o 04:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete This is original historical research about a person who does not reverse-inherit the notability of his son. Mangoe (talk) 07:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete merge if there's anything worth merging back into the Andrew Johnson article, otherwise delete. SportingFlyer T·C 11:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Marvel Comics characters: S. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit of '76 (Marvel Comics)[edit]

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

A minor comic book character, the article is the usual plot summary+publicaiton history with nor reception or analysis. BEFORE is no giving much except a few mentions in passing; realistically any reception we could write would be "this character, like several others, was inspired by Captain America"). I am afraid this fails WP:GNG. The best WP:ATD I can think of would be a slight merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: S. (The character is also mentioned in Alternative versions of Captain America, but I don't recommend merging there as that particular article likely fails GNG itself). He is mentioned in passing in our Captain America article, and I am afraid that, plus a brief plot summary in the list, is really all this minor character deserves. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to List of Marvel Comics characters: S as per nom. Off-chance of more out-of-universe material in Amazing Heroes or Back Issue! articles on Invaders (comics) (will try to have a look later, I think I had these hooked out before I realised editing Marvel articles was pointless) but most likely passing mentions only (IIRC the character's awful name was occasionally commented on). BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 07:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: actually had this closer to hand than I thought. A 'Hero History' overview of The Invaders in Amazing Heroes #97 (June 15, 1986) posits the character is an expy of DC's Uncle Sam but mentions little else about the character beyond the bald minor facts that a) he existed and b) the later Captain America retcon, maybe two sentences total across a 10-page article. A similarly themed article in Back Issue! #37 mentions him even less, merely stating that the Crusaders were a "team too many". And that's pretty much it; other articles on the Invaders don't mention the character at all beyond the passing trivia note that it was Naslund's codename before he was retconned to be Captain America (a plot angle that has even less secondary coverage). So, in short, nothing to change my vote has turned up in the places this stuff usually does. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 07:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: S per improvements made and sources added to the article and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: S in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE just as @BOZ: suggested. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'll note that since this AfD started, User:Higher Further Faster has added a tiny reception section. Sadly, it seems to be based on WP:SIGCOV-faling mentions in passing in listicles. But it is nonetheless somethng worth considering for merging as suggested above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dealing with that kind of thing is why I gave up editing Marvel articles. As you say, both of those sources are questionable beyond being trivial mentions and I don't seem anything to change the idea that it should instead be merged. Seeing as a merge would effectively mean just dropping the entire article into the correct place on the list it seems to be another case of the fannish|arrogant|vain assumption that all Marvel characters are somehow entitled to their own pages and that in-universe notability (he fought Nazis in WW2 and was Captain America for years) is the same thing as real-world notability (he was a guest-star in some largely second-tier comics a couple of times). BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plush Mush[edit]

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

I am unable to find reliable sources that establish notability for this musical artist. Google search for "Plush Mush" results in about 65 sites, consisting of places to hear the songs and sites to buy mushroom plushies. Sources provided in the article are interviews at sites that basically exist for promotional purposes (e.g. Blaster Magazine's tagline is "Get interviewed today!"), or short news items declaring that a new song has been released. ... discospinster _talk 03:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Puerto Rico. ... discospinster _talk 03:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator's assessment. Searching news, news archive, the web normally, and WP:TWL brings nothing up. What's there isn't usable. —Sirdog (talk) 05:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing for notability for this musical artist found, all are mentions of plush items you can mush. Oaktree b (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I have to close this discussion as a No consensus. My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is that a Redirect or Merge might be appropriate here but there wasn't a majority of editors advocating for any particular outcome. In lieu of a more definitive closure, I encourage editors to improve this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zotiel (angel)[edit]

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

One mention in a religious text and scattered references elsewhere do not bode well for notability. Fails WP:GNG. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 14:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 14:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, how does my draft article differ from many other Wikipedia stubs (not just those related to religion) which do not have as much references and "secondary analysis" as mine and yet remain up there? I would also welcome if you (or the adjudicators and other community members) also have other suggestions such as inclusion of this text under some main article where you think discussion of Zotiel is better suited. Otherwise, your nomination is just being arbitrary and implies that the contributions made are so minuscule regardless if it was mentioned in the book of Enoch as among the angels. Pcbyed (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 15:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Christian B. Yang-ed This is an article not a draft PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my pardon, I used the wrong word Pcbyed (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Christian B. Yang-ed: Even if it was mentioned in the book of Enoch as among the angels, it isn't necessarily notable. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 00:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My objective in making this article was somehow to make an article that would also inform about the other angels that do not receive as much attention as the other angels. In this way, I was hoping to contribute to expanding people's knowledge on certain details or biblical personages. I think the attention this angel receives is quite notable in terms of people who discuss it compared to other stubs in English wikipedia that have not been deleted and yet remain available for years without being notified.

Now, an alternative option I am also thinking is if there is a wikipedia page for a summary of list of angels or personalities mentioned in the Book of Enoch. We can just insert this discussion of Zotiel as a section if it is too "un-notable" for the standards of the body. (By the way, is there a voting a process to determine "notability" here?) That is another suggestion. What would you (or anyone else here) also suggest? Pcbyed (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is emphatically no "voting process", consensus is determined, based on notability guidelines. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 01:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as my own search yielded nothing more than trivial mentions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "One reference in a religious text" -- This was not just any religious text. The Book of Enoch was influential in Second Temple Judaism (the Jewish religion during the 5+ centuries between 516 BCE and 70 CE). It was influential among Jews during this period and then subsequently rejected by Rabbinic Judaism after the destruction of the Second Temple. It was also influential among early Christians; see Reception of the Book of Enoch in premodernity. Neither Judaism nor Christianity had an official canon during this period and Enoch was widely accepted on the same level as other Biblical books. Today, Enoch is part of the official canon of the Bible in the Ethiopian Christian churches and Beta Israel (Ethiopian Judaism).

We traditionally have articles on similar minor Biblical figures including others in Enoch such as Sariel, Yomiel, Sathariel, Shamsiel, Zaqiel, Bezaliel, Ananiel, Batariel, Armaros, etc.

Zotiel is also mentioned in later works far outside the Christian and Jewish mainstream in areas such as Hollow Earth theory, modern day Anunnakism, popular culture works about angels, etc. [51][52][53][54][55]

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 07:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- All of the sources listed above are unreliable. At least one of them is a work of fiction. If anything, we could consider turning this into a redirect, maybe to Book of Enoch. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Speaking of source reliability, what is your assessment of the reliability of sources currently in the article? Some of them are primary, and I'm a tad skeptical of The Language of the Angels: Calling Angelic Assistance, Healing and Wisdom Into Your Life. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 15:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The Language of the Angels is a spiritual devotional text. As best I can tell, it could be used to establish some minor aspect of notability, but that would be stretching it. I'll look some more, but the angel in question doesn't seem to be of great enough note to warrant its own article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I've removed The Language of Angels but the other sources seem fine (I've also added a new source, Black 1985). However, I don't think the sources I can access add up to significant coverage (Gil apparently has three pages on the subject, but I can't access it and it appears to be in Hebrew). Sojourner in the earth (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Pbritti, my point in listing those resources was not to use them as reliable sources -- most are downright fringe-y. It was instead to point out that the brief story of Zotiel influenced subsequent developments.
  
  --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not denying that the Book of Enoch is important. But is one passing mention in it enough to indicate notability? Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 15:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Book of Enoch. I was unable to find much significant discussion in reliable sources, even searching variant names "Zutiel", "Zutuel", "Zutel", etc. However, I think a redirect would be preferable to deletion in order to preserve the content and refs, as it's very possible that this information could one day find a place within a larger article (e.g. "Angels in the Book of Enoch", which some of the smaller articles in Category:Angels in the Book of Enoch could also be merged into). Sojourner in the earth (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the references add up. gidonb (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 16:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning that, in addition to the mention in the Book of Enoch, also later mentions of the figure count toward notability. gidonb (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: as at the moment there's no consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Without seeing the Gil source it's hard to be sure, but we have some coverage in Stock-Hesketh in Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha that references Gil with some depth, making it seem likely. In contrast, there are clear directions for the eastern journey, where Enoch is on his own,and actually flies over the head of an angel, Zutuel.⁴⁰
...
40. Though see Black (Book of Enoch, p. 179), who thinks that Zutiel is a corruption of the text. This angel appears in Codex Panopolitanus as Zotiel and Ethiopic as lamal’ak zutu’êl; Knibb (Ethiopic Book of Enoch, I, p. 101, line 22) and note. Charles has zute’êl and notes variants (Ethiopic Enoch, p. 72) and thinks that this is ’seemingly the angel who guards the entrance to Paradise’ (APOT, p. 207). Gil suggests that he is connected with the eastern journey as the ’angel who resurrects the dead. He is the angelological correspondent of the Tree of Life’; M. Gil ’Enoch in the Land of Eternal Life’ Tarbiz 38.4 (1969), pp. i-iii (ii).
.

A merge may be appropriate even given all this if it improves the main article. —siro χ o 06:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be missing from many places including Book of Enoch, Category:Angels in the Book of Enoch, and List of angels in theology which kind of suggests less notability relative to other subjects of the same genre. Would need to be added if kept. - Indefensible (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment not being in the mentioned category seems to me to have less to do with notability and much more to do with editing. That is now rectified. (No comment on the lack of mention in other articles). LadyofShalott 15:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, I see weak arguments for Delete and others for Keep and Redirect. This might be closed as No consensus. It would help to bring in more subject matter experts.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep Book of Enoch is a very well studied religious text and I don't see a redirect or merge improving the sites coverage on this topic.★Trekker (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a passing mention in the Book of Enoch is enough to establish notability. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was.★Trekker (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Honorverse#Companion. but this content remains in the page history in case any of it is needed for a Merge.

I just want to thank the participants here for a very civil discussion. You all were able to investigate the merits and possible notability of this article subject without being too wedded to your own desired outcome. You might be surprised how infrequently I see this in AFD discussions. Usually once an editor has identified themselves with a specific outcome, they argue it to the bitter end. I appreciate your open minds and willingness to consider perspectives other than your own. This is when Wikipedia consensus-building really works even if a Redirect isn't your preferred outcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

House of Steel: The Honorverse Companion[edit]

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

This book sadly fails WP:NBOOK and GNG, being just a catalogue entry with a table of contents (no reception, rewards, reviews, etc.). I consider myself a fan of Honorverse, but my BEFORE failed to find anything except one capsule review (see Talk:House of Steel: The Honorverse Companion where User:Cunard was able to provide its contents). Cunard agreed that sources we have don't merit keeping this as a stand-alone entry, and as such, I propose a redirect to Honorverse#Companion, where I'll add the capsule review we found as a source in a moment. Since I dislike stealthy deletions by redirecting, I am listing this here, but since neither me nor Cunard could find anything to save this with, well, as much as I'd love to be surprised and see someone else step in, I have serious doubts we can do better than said redirect. Do prove me wrong if you can, of course. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Military. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here's an interesting source [56] 461 words plus rating and content warnings. This is neither WP:UGC nor is it truly a WP:SELFPUBLISHED blug, as it has a editorial and review staff (listed only by first name), and some amount of editorial practices [57]. The editor and assistant editor both have experience as professional or semi-professional writers. I don't see anything disqualifying, unless the lack of full names is a problem. —siro χ o 05:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The review is effectively anonymous (written up by "joe"). You are right they describe their staff members, including "joe", here, but I think we would all agree this website is an online fanzine, and pretty niche. Did the site win any awards or recognition for its coverage? Based on my experience with games reviews (board and video), I think this review can be cited, but it is not very helpful at estabilishing notability. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fanzine is probably an apt descriptor. I don't see any awards. I do see some "minor" recognition, e.g from inclusion as a blurb from an independently published (not self-published) book [58] or from agents/authors posting reviews of their client/own works eg [59][60]. I definitely can understand the hesitance. I don't see any particular way in which this violates WP:RS, but the lack of full names gives me a moment's pause. —siro χ o 09:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Playing my own devils advocate, very RS outlets like The Economist also have anonymous or semi-anonymous pieces by default... sigh. It's more of my rule of thumb for reviews, as in, I don't think reviews from fanzines count for estabilishing notability. But this is very much my own rule of thumb, not somethign that is enshrined in community policies. Wonder if we could do an RfC somewhere on this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Analog Science Fiction and Fact review was the only source I can find about House of Steel: The Honorverse Companion:
1. Sakers, Don (November 2013). "The Reference Library". Analog Science Fiction and Fact. Vol. 133, no. 1. p. 104. ProQuest 1431944125.
  The review notes: House of Steel: The Honorverse Companion. David Weber with BuNine. Baen, 565 pages, $15.00 (trade paperback). Baen ebooks: $9.99 (e-book) ISBN: 978-1-4516-3893-6. Series: Honor Harrington Genre: Military SF, Nonfiction. David Weber's Honor Harrington series, along with the universe of the books—known to fans as the Honorverse—was originally aimed squarely at military history buffs. Since then, the Honorverse has transcended its life of Horatio Nelson origin to become popular among all kinds of military SF readers. House of Steel is divided into two parts. The first 183 pages consist of Weber's Honorverse novella "I Will Build My House of Steel " This is the story of Lieutenant Roger Winton, first officer of HMS Wolverine in the Royal Manticoran Navy. Winton, who just happens to grow up to be king, gets an early education in intrigue among the Star Kingdom's foreign enemies—education that stands him in good stead when he takes the throne. The story's told with Weber's trademark friendly, breezy style. There's plenty of politics, action, and just enough humor. The second part of House of Steel is called The Honorverse Companion, and it was put together by the BuNine Research Group, an Honorverse fan group. Here are the background details of the Honorverse. There's military procedure and trappings, history, capsule biographies of important characters, and nearly two hundred pages of detailed notes (including diagrams) of military technology. In short, there's something for everyone. I can't imagine a fan of the Honorverse who wouldn't want this book."
The book is mentioned at Honorverse#Companion, so redirecting there is a good alternative to deletion per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.
I don't know if this article from my-sf.com is reliable or not as I've not encountered this website before. If it is reliable, the book passes Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria, which says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
If it is not reliable, the book does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.
Cunard (talk) 07:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Honorverse#Companion per Cunard's suggestion. The sources provided so far seem insufficient for writing a quality encyclopedia article, and I was unable to find any more. It gives me pause that "MySF" itself doesn't seem notable and I'm also concerned by this "Review Request" page ([61])—they are not currently taking review requests, but they did at at least one point in the past ([62]).
There are plenty of science fiction literary magazines that publish reviews and criticism (Besides Analog there's also Asimov's, Strange Horizons, Uncanny, Lightspeed, Tor.com, etc), as well as a decent number of genre-focused news outlets (The Verge, Polygon, Den of Geek, Wired, etc). I'd expect to see more substantial coverage for notable SF writing. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 23:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not meant to try to convince you to change your !vote, but only as a reply to the review request form note. I did see that review request form archive. It seems like a relative standard practice to accept review requests and review copies in the industry, this one just also happens to be a little more detailed. Overall, it's not too different to Strange Horizons [63] which explicitly accepts review requests and explains how to submit, and Lightspeed [64] which accepts books for review. —siro χ o 23:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good point, and it certainly doesn't mean they're affected editorially (they claim requests are independent, and I see no reason to doubt that claim). I see some language on the archived page that makes me curious what the editorial standards are here; if they guarantee reviews to anyone who asks them (or pays for them) then for notability purposes I would consider it similar to Kirkus Indie. This is probably going too deep into the source though; given the broad coverage of the Honorverse series in general I doubt that happened here, and it's far more likely that "Joe" is a legitimate fan of the series who decided to review the compendium. Either way, I still don't see quite enough here to build a good independent article on the companion, but I suspect both this and the Analog review would be fine sources for expanding Honorverse#Companion—I might take a crack at that later this evening if no one beats me to it. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 00:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see Piotrus had already added the Analog source to the proposed redirect target, thanks! I cleaned up the existing prose a bit. There's not much more that can be said from the Analog review alone, reinforcing my thoughts that we don't have sufficient sourcing for a full article. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 20:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Honorverse#Companion as a reasonable ATD. IMO mySF is between situational and unreliable. It is a Wordpress blog, which is generally a non-RS SPS unless there is evidence to the contrary (i.e., authors are subject-matter-experts, presence of editorial policies, and clear USEBYOTHERS). However, in this case I am concerned that 1) the staff are semi-anonymous, making it very hard to verify expertises, and only one of the editors as a technical writer possibly have expertise (though it's unclear if that's journalism or literary review related, which is required for subject-matter-expertise), another editor is semi-professional, whereas the rest does not have described qualifications at all, 2) there is otherwise no clear editorial process or editorial policy (I consider the list of staff and basic about us info to be distinct compared to overview of editorial processes), and 3) this basically has no usage by others except when authors and publishers very occasionally use this to promote their own works. Overall, I am unconvinced of reliability. This only leaves one reliable review Cunard found above, which is insufficient to pass GNG or NBOOK#1. Also, if someone adds the review above to the article, a light merge would also be fine. VickKiang (talk) 05:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SS Jassim[edit]

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

Unremarkable shipwreck, shows up on Wikimapia and has been discussed on Reddit, with a few mentions in media based on those sources. Doesn;t appear to have enough coverage to meet GNG. Acroterion (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First two sources in the article are unreliable. Web searches aren't convincing either, and do not have signficant coverage of the event. Delete per nominator. Tails Wx (they/them) ⚧ 02:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sudan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after a unconvincing source search though note I didn't search in Sudanese media. Would like to keep this if any other sources beyond "cool places in Google maps" can be found - there's a mention in a diving the Red Sea book though. SportingFlyer T·C 11:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Norway, and Bolivia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no WP:RS sources cited, so fails WP:GNG. Seems to be just another non-notable shipwreck. - Ahunt (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rosewater Limited Liability Company[edit]

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

Obscure company that does not meet WP:NCORP. Also, created by one of the co-founders. Graywalls (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. Graywalls (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet any GNG, and even if it did meet WP:NCORP this would require a TNT due to the POV of the creator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Let'srun (talk • contribs) 02:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Ohio. AllyD (talk) 07:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only mentions of rose water found, nothing about this company (?). Even what's given for sourcing in the article is minimal, not sure what the scan of the official document adds for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Fox News Radio. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News Talk[edit]

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

Not enough WP:SIGCOV to meet any notability guidelines for this subject to have a standalone article. Fox News Radio is a possible redirect target. Let'srun (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect to Fox News Radio: it's hard to imagine any independent notability for the channel from the rest of Fox News's audio operations, and any additional content that can be sourced should go to the Fox News Radio article. (As it is, certain searches make it difficult to distinguish between the channel and material relating to Fox News-produced radio talk shows in general, of which the channel was simply the way those programs were carried on SiriusXM and their predecessors.) The channel is already mentioned there (which is probably all the channel itself needs), and there is a section on Fox News Radio's talk shows that can absorb any sourceable content about the shows themselves.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect to Fox News Radio per Wcquidditch. I agree with their analysis here. —Sirdog (talk) 05:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. leaning Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Slavic cultures[edit]

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

WP:OR WP:UNSOURCED WP:CROSSCAT of language family – Slavic languages – and geography – almost all items in this list are named Culture of Fooland. The only one for which this does not apply is Lusatian culture, an archaeological culture which has been hypothesised to be linked to the Early Slavs, but the evidence of this (as with most archaeological cultures) is inconclusive.

The Slavic language family is WP:NONDEFINING for these countries, so this list is a WP:CROSSCAT. There is a strong consensus building on a long series of precedents to not mix up language families and countries/states, see the landmark decision Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries for an anthology. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, and Lists. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why the melodrama? There is no "landmark" decision, nor is one deletion discussion a "strong consensus building on a long series of precedents". This is about culture, not territory. Category:Slavic culture shows these culture articles listed there. These articles mention the slav people influencing these cultures. So totally different situation here. Dream Focus 00:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is about culture, not territory. Well, let's have a look, shall we?
- - Belarusian culture redirects to Culture of Belarus
  - Russian culture redirects to Culture of Russia
  - Ruthenian culture redirects to Culture of Kievan Rus'
  - Ukrainian culture redirects to Culture of Ukraine
  - Bosnian culture redirects to Culture of Bosnia and Herzegovina
  - Bulgarian culture redirects to Culture of Bulgaria
  - Croatian culture redirects to Culture of Croatia
  - Macedonian culture (Slavic) redirects to Macedonians (ethnic group)#Culture, whose "main article" is..... Culture of North Macedonia
  - Serbian culture redirects to Culture of Serbia
  - Montenegrin culture redirects to Culture of Montenegro
  - Slovenian culture redirects to Culture of Slovenia
  - Czech culture redirects to Culture of the Czech Republic
  - Kashubian culture does not exist
  - Lusatian culture is the only exception, but is not necessarily "Slavic"; its identity is disputed
  - Polabian culture redirects to Polabian Slavs, a medieval people, not a "culture"
  - Polish culture redirects to Culture of Poland
  - Silesian culture does not exist
  - Slovak culture redirects to Culture of Slovakia
  - Sorbian culture does not exist
See? It's all about territories, more specifically: countries. And these countries are overgeneralised as if they are entirely or most importantly defined by the language family to which the language spoken by the majority of native speakers in each country belongs to. That's it. That's all there is to it. This is a plainly trivial fact. We might as well be making a List of countries whose name ends on -ia. Other than this majority-of-population-of-country-X-are-native-speakers-of-a-language-belonging-to-the-Slavic-language-family link, these countries do not have anything uniquely "culturally" in common. In that sense it is exactly original research like the "Turkic" deletions before. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Despite Nederlandse Leeuw's claim culture and language are inextricably linked and many sources treat them together. Thus this article is very different from a cross categorization of political organization by language family. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The articles in question are about countries. Take the demographics of North Macedonia:

58.4% Macedonians

24.3% Albanians

3.9% Turks

2.5% Romani

Etc.

So Macedonians make up barely half of the population, while native speakers of non-Slavic languages make up about a third. How can we then say that Culture of North Macedonia is, by definition, "Slavic"? Seriously? We can't. This is just overgeneralisation and Wikipedia:Original research. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a list of ethnicities would make more sense (though I don’t support it per listcruft). “Culture” is used on Wikipedia to refer to the culture of an area or group, not that area or group. This list makes no sense. Dronebogus (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Outline of Slavic history and culture#Culture. This quasi-disambiguation list is not useful as a standalone page, though this seems like a plausible search term, and this is an appropriate target article to redirect to. For now, at least, not sure if there are plans for AfD-ing or revamping the said article too, but the merge should be done regardless. –Vipz (talk) 07:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Outline of Slavic history and culture#Culture as suggested by Vipz. I think this will improve both articles. —siro χ o 08:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Strange list of countries with predominantly Slavic populations. Analogous to it would be List of German cultures, List of Baltic cultures, or List of Finno-Ugric cultures. I don't see the point of either redirecting or merging, too. Suitskvarts (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I hate list articles and even I see a strong value here. The list is about cultures, not territories. Nederlandse Leeuw's assertion otherwise completely ignores the last four decades when many of the those precise Slavic cultures attempted to cleanse each other. They thereby created territories and named them for the cultural identity they were claiming, not the other way round. Suitskvarts, are you saying we should AfD Germanic culture, Western Baltic culture and (although it's not the precise title) Andronovo culture? The articles exist and are pretty solid. Or is the problem the fact that it's a list? Attempting to pretend that (for instance) Elbeans and Bosnians had the same culture (and writing such an article) would raise howls of rage, but they each have a culture, and each has Slavic roots. Thus a list makes perfect sense. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Last1in I myself have Slavic roots and cultural studies is my specialty. I wouldn't mind a meaningful Slavic culture article, but this particular list is artificial. And one can keep repeating that it's allegedly not about territories, but it's obvious that these "non-territories" somehow coincide with modern states. And Slavic states in their modern form haven't existed that long ago. If tomorrow Belarus, for example, breaks up into Northern Belarus and Southern Belarus, we will immediately add to the list of articles North Belarusian culture and Southern Belarusian culture? Another serious issue is that apart from a language of common genesis, the Slavic countries don't have much in common. Their cuisine, religious tradition, literature, history, and culture (which is what we are focusing on here) often differ from each other more than from Slavic countries and their neighbors. Serbian culture is more similar to Hungarian culture than to Belarusian one. Poles have more in common with Lithuanians than with Macedonians. And so on, and so on. Suitskvarts (talk) 05:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Czech Republic, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a plausible search term, especially the incoming redirect Slavic culture, so just redirect it to the better place and be done with it. --Joy (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We could move this list to Slavic culture and turn it into a set index. —siro χ o 05:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Outline of Slavic history and culture#Culture as proposed above. --Nk (talk) 07:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. My gut instinct is to close this as Merge to Outline of Slavic history and culture#Culture but there are strong arguments for Keep and Deletion that might lead to a No Consensus closure by another closer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is useful to have a list of cultures here and it is of useful to have it for navigational purposes. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A possible search term which works better as a list than a category. No problem with any proposed AtD, including merging. SportingFlyer T·C 11:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, to echo Dream Focus, why the melodrama? This is only a navigational aid. A lot of people have no idea what countries contain people considered Slavic. It's impossible to sort out the extent to which a people is defined by their language or by their current geographical boundaries, or by their cookery or anything else; and the definition of a particular region, people, or culture gradually changes over time anyway, as boundaries move, people move, and people mix their ideas with their neighbours. Rather than arguing over what constitutes or defines Belarusian culture, lets accept that our readers may be interested in what cultural activities are associated with Belarus (the current country), with people who identify as Belarusian, or who speak Belarusian. And let's give them this list as a tool to find out more. Elemimele (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Freyer[edit]

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

Non-notable VFL player. The article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. There are no references and the two external links are stat sites. The one note leads to a book entitled "The Encyclopedia of AFL Footballers: every AFL/VFL player since 1897", which seems pretty useless for notability and remarkably similar to the aforementioned stat sites. IncompA 01:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia. IncompA 01:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The ongoing crusade against the uncultured sportsmen. Clearly passed the stupidly deleted NAFL. Unclear why inclusion in an encyclopaedia is useless for the inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Nothing controversial and/or unverified. Can't pretend we have to be careful about BLPs because he died over 60 years ago. Funny how nom claims there are no references, did they even look at the page before nominating it. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any VFL player should be notable, even as perma-stubs, as there are print encyclopedias dedicated to their existence and therefore they have been "worthy of note." Also has multiple references. Needs improvement, not deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 11:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've expanded the article with many sources from Trove, an Australian newspaper archive. Some are passing mentions but there's enough to clear GNG – I would single out these pieces [65] [66] [67] [68] if we're looking for the best. I'm not really convinced the nominator did his due diligence here. When you're evaluating notability, it's not enough to look merely at the sources currently in the article. You have to thoroughly search where sources are likely to exist. And even though NAFL has been demoted from guideline status and no longer grants presumed notability, it remains a useful rule of thumb for when you should take more care to see what coverage is out there. – Teratix ₵ 22:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many SNGs were problematic, but NAFL is pretty spot on - if you played in the AFL/VFL, you are almost certainly wiki-notable, because sources will cover you. SportingFlyer T·C 15:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really? You think every single AFL/VFL passes Wikipedia's notability requirements? Even one-gamers? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps older one-gamers might not, but the competition has been covered so well for so long - especially considering playing lists have been pretty much fixed before the season starts - that it would be surprising to me if any failed, similar to American baseball and basketball pro leagues. SportingFlyer T·C 16:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Callum Dixon[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, only appears in generic articles listing actors. No non-trivial coverage from any secondary sources. dummelaksen (talk • contribs) 15:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. dummelaksen (talk • contribs) 15:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. The article is pretty bare bones, and a lot of the links have gone dead, but I think someone should dig a little deeper before we rush to delete this. He has done a lot of work in West End theatre and other UK theatre. Playbill wrote a paragraph about his work here. More theatre credits here. He has also done quite a bit of TV work, but I don't know how significant his roles were.

The Playbill article isn't about him and only lists his works − I don't think that qualifies as coverage. dummelaksen (talk • contribs) 16:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There's something there, but it's borderline: [69], [70]. Suitskvarts (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep/on the fence, this person definitely seems to have been active in many stage productions, and I can see many passing mentions to him in the newspaper archives, but not a great deal of WP:SIGCOV. However I did some across this newspaper article from 1991 (see preview here) which is a column dedicated to discussing his work and is some way towards significant coverage, which leads me to think there will be more coverage in the archives (more likely the BNA). Looking through the BNA search results from the '90s shows numerous mentions in other publications, however many are indeed trivial so I remain weak in my !vote. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also for anyone with BNA access, this article is decent sigcov of the subject from a 1990 edition of the Leicester Mercury (edit: now clipped for free here). I am thinking, based on the search results, this person can pass WP:BASIC. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because of the Weak Keeps. This tilts the discussion to a No Consensus closure unless an another week brings in more participants who can provide additional sources or a further source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Per the sources provided by others, this subject has just enough WP:SIGCOV to meet the GNG, mainly via the Leicester Mercury article and aforementioned 1991 article from Bungle. Let'srun (talk) 02:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above Brachy08 _(Talk) 02:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BASIC is met. The Leicester Mercury source is an ideal starting point. Note also that BASIC says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, making exception for trivial coverage, where examples of trivial coverage include statements by the subject, jobs the subject has undertaken, database entries and the like. As such, we can examine sources for short but non-trivial coverage to establish BASIC. Reading through proquest you get lots of short-but-non-trivial bits of coverage. In fact based on these first 3 sources, we have verifiability that multiple critics thought the subject was funny in his role as the pizza man in Mr Kolpert.
1. A key comic catalyst is Callum Dixon's hilariously bemused pizza man, who keeps arriving with the wrong order at the worst possible times, his knock regularly confused with the knock that seems to be coming from inside the trunk.[71]
2. Callum Dixon is hilarious as the pizza man who finds he has stepped into social mayhem.[72]
3. Meanwhile, Callum Dixon's bemused little pizza man keeps arriving with the wrong order and blundering into scenes that would faze a hardened war correspondent.[73]
4. Max Stafford- Clark's mesmerising production features an outstanding cast, ably led by lippy Callum Dixon ... [74].
5. Matters aren't helped by Stephen Rayne's laborious direction and some startlingly unsubtle acting. Honourable exceptions include Callum Dixon's Nat, whose Cockney chirpiness is convincingly edged with menace ... [75]
6. ... and her horse-mad son, wirily incarnated by Callum Dixon. [76]
7. ... Callum Dixon, 26, has just completed a run at the National in The Day I Stood Still.[77]
8. But the play is never less than provocatively entertaining, and under John Burgess's direction there are striking performances from Charlotte Cornwell as the standup therapist, Callum Dixon as the anxious construction worker ... [78]
9. Adrian Scarborough captures precisely Horace's mixture of romantic longing and fear of commitment. Callum Dixon is also suitably tentative as his younger self ...[79]

This list is far from exhaustive, I didn't even check every result in ProQuest. And there appears to be quite a bit more in The Daily/Sunday Telegraph archives for which I don't have full text access. There will surely be more in other archives than ProQuest. —siro χ o 06:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Harris (engineer)[edit]

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

Motown sound engineer lacking sources. Rates one passing mention each in Motown Encyclopedia, Motown: The Golden Years and I Hear a Symphony: Motown and Crossover R&B. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, California, and Michigan. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the combination of the references and the awards adds up to notability. Wikipedia's coverage of recording engineers is weak and ought to be improved. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not Wikipedia's function to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or even LESSERWRONGS. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Engineering. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:CREATIVE.3 for co-creating significant body of work as a recording engineer, mixer, and occasional synthesizer player, most immediately verifiable via [80] others verifiable by liner notes, including but not limited to Last Time I Saw Him, Trouble Man (album), 1990 (The Temptations album), Marvin Gaye Live!, Let's Get It On, Caught in the Act (Commodores album), and Hot on the Tracks. —siro χ o 06:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:CREATIVE #3 as head of recording during the glory years at Motown. ~Kvng (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Éric Martin (footballer, born 1973)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only sources I could find are this and this. It could be argued that the second one offers significant coverage. However, with only one appearance at the professional level and no other online sources for a player who played only in the 90s and 2000s, GNG is failed for me. Note that I know I created the article, but I rather go through AfD for this. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and France. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination. The article fails WP:GNG and the references are stat sites. The first of the two that the nomination provides is one already on the article, and the second one is a bit of a biography but still isn't enough to be anything more than original research on the website's part. Oh, and by the way, bold move nominating your own article. IncompA 01:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the recognition, IncompA. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Price[edit]

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

There is very, very little here worth keeping. Checking the sources in reception, this is what I was able to conclude.

18 and 19 are lists with literally nothing to say.
20 says literally nothing.
21 is a repeat of 18 and 19.
22 basically says nothing besides "He's in Call of Duty!"
23 is from an unlisted source, possibly unreliable, still says nothing anyways.
24 does go over his character, and is legitimate reception towards him to some extents.
25 does the same as 24, but this is from the same source anyways.
26 wasn't archived and now is a completely different article that does not mention Price at all.
27 is Valnet, not usable in notability discussions.
28 just says "Captain Price, the series' most iconic character" without any sort of elaboration.
29 I can't even tell what is trying to say, and it's just a list of Call of Duty characters anyways. Does this even count as reception?
30 is more or less reception for All Ghillied Up.
31 does the same as 24 and 25, but it is also from the same source.
32 is not reception, it's trivia.

So this leaves us with references 24, 25, and 31. All from GamesRadar+. Everything else is lists that don't have much substance. I don't think this character has enough reception to stand on its own, just like Soap and Ghost, and WP:BEFORE does not do much for Price either. He likely fails notability and SIGCOV. NegativeMP1 (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. NegativeMP1 (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge per Piotrus. I'd like to keep this around, but it just doesn't seem to have enough to stand on its own right now. I support a List of Call of Duty Characters article should this AfD go through, but in any case, the article right now just doesn't have grounds to stand on its own. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge. I am also not impressed by the reception (and I appreciate nom/s ref by ref breakdown). "received critical acclaim" followed by "ranked as eight on Game Informer's list of "30 Characters Who Defined a Decade" and voted as 17th top video game character of all time in Guinness World Records 2011 Gamers' Edition." is quite contradictory, to say the least. I'd nonetheless support merging some content to Call of Duty which right now does not have a section on characters at all. A List of Call of Duty characters could also be created. @BoomboxTestarossa on the off chance they feel like creating another list following my bright idea :P _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think out of both of those options the most ideal one is a List of Call of Duty characters. A characters section, if including characters from all timelines and games, could be way too big for the Call of Duty franchise article. This idea was also proposed at the AfD discussions for Ghost (Call of Duty) and Soap MacTavish yet was not created. NegativeMP1 (talk) 02:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI there previously was such a list thought it was deleted several years back.--65.93.193.235 (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly list articles have a tendency to accumulate cruft, but that shouldn't be a reason for deletion.★Trekker (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. Zero WP:SIGCOV. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think a better merge target in this instance would be the series article itself or Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare but that's just me. NegativeMP1 (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would be fine either way. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 00:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect due to insufficient WP:SIGCOV. Most of these are only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs. Neutral on target. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If not kept then a list article for COD characters might be the right merge target.★Trekker (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per others. As to where, well since Captain Price is in CoD2, 4, MW2, MW3, MW (2019), MW2 (2022), and the upcoming MW3 (2023), perhaps to the main Call of Duty article or to a future List of Call of Duty characters would work. Conyo14 (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C.W. Raines[edit]

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

Non-notable retired soccer player. The two references in the article are passing mentions of how soccer has helped him as a COO, strangely enough. Regardless of this, there's no coverage outside of these two passing mentions, failing both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. IncompA 00:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Football, and United States of America. IncompA 00:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any evidence to say this article meets GNG. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Knuttila[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not meet any WP:GNG as a former beauty pageant contestant. Let'srun (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Minnesota. Let'srun (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing found for notability [81], newspaper Q&A, and this [82], her school turned 100. No sourcing we can use, non-notable as a pageant winner. Oaktree b (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination. The article fails WP:GNG and the references aren't much better. The latter two bring you to dead websites, the second is a passing mention and the first is a... Birth index? Really? IncompA 00:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination and Oaktree b. Checked the web, news, the archive, and WP:TWL - no dice. The only thing of substance I could find myself that wasn't already mentioned above was [83], which is a press release. —Sirdog (talk) 05:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on WP:GNG/WP:BLP1E grounds, and as per the above arguments regarding sourcing. SportingFlyer T·C 11:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't seem anything notable here.Mason (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, fails WP:GNG. JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Balu[edit]

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

Not seeing much in RS for this individual, beyond race descriptions. Delete for lack of sourcing, not at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and India. Oaktree b (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added a number of citations including to his 11 National titles. Kindly suggest what else needs to be corrected/added. Davidindia (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Balu is one of the handful of Indian motorsports athletes who won more than 10 National titles over a period of 30 years. Since wikipedia lacks much material and articles on Indian motorsports a few of us have started writing about popular athletes.

If you suggest the areas where it needs to be improved to make it a proper article, I am willing to work on it and improve it. Kindly suggest in what areas work is needed.

thanks,

Davidindia Davidindia (talk) 04:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article is encyclopedic and my stand is oppose/keep for the following reasons.

Arjun Balu is an indian motorsports athlete who won more than 10 Indian National titles. In the history of Indian motorsports there are less than a dozen who won that many national titles.

The sources used are from reputed Newspapers like the Indian Express, the Times of India, Deccan Herald and reputed auto magazines like AutoCar India.

Since I am not well-versed in the abbreviations used, I am not clear what are the reasons for deletion. I someone suggests I can work on it and improve the article if the style needs to change or more citations needed.

Though I know the athlete, I have no personal relation or interest in the said athlete and I have no commercial interests or dealings with him. I have watched him only as a reporter. I would like to state that I have NO Conflict of Interest.

Need suggestions to improve this article.

Davidindia Davidindia (talk) 09:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Need sourcing that confirms what he does and why it's important. Oaktree b (talk) 00:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have added more sources to confirm his status as a notable Indian racing champion. Davidindia (talk) 11:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep SNG for sports is meeting here. See NMOTORSPORT#Criterion 4. Okoslavia (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article definitely meets this criteria as Arjun Balu has won umpteen races and over half a dozen National Championship titles in the INdian Nationals, which is an equivalent of the British Touring Car. So it meets the criteria under No.4...

Winning a "round of any primarily-professional series of significant national importance, such as the British Touring Car Championship"..,

He is also considered as one of the legends of Indian motorsports...

Kindly let me know what else needs to be added to remove the AfD tag... Davidindia (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have added more sources to confirm his status as a notable Indian racing champion. Davidindia (talk) 11:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article definitely meets this criteria (See NMOTORSPORT#Criterion 4. ) as Arjun Balu has won umpteen races (rounds) and over half a dozen National Championship titles in the Indian Nationals, which is an equivalent of the British Touring Car. So it meets the criteria under No.4...

Winning a "round of any primarily-professional series of significant national importance, such as the British Touring Car Championship"..,

He is also considered as one of the legends of Indian motorsports...

Kindly let me know what else needs to be added to remove the AfD tag...

Davidindia (talk) 11:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted references to the website I edit and have added other references to uphold neutrality and remove anything that may appear as "Advertisement". Request editors to check.Davidindia — Preceding undated comment added 08:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need input from unconnected editors
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria 4. IncompA 00:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Krystal Muccioli[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR as a former child actor and beauty pageant contestant. Let'srun (talk) 00:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and New Hampshire. Let'srun (talk) 00:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sourcing we can use from the article, none found. Beauty pageant winner, non-notable career otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination. The article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Additionally, the references are all passing mentions, 1, 2, and 3 mentioning the pageant win and 4 mentioning the win and her acting career. IncompA 00:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with previous comment. Fails WP:GNG Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is a consensus to Keep this article but a discussion to possibly Merge this article can occur on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Essential Workers Monument[edit]

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

There was a huge burst of coverage around this when then-governor Cuomo announced it and the blocked proposals that followed. Labor Day, and Cuomo's tenure as governor, came and went, and two years later, there is no memorial nor any sign there will be one. I don't see any viable merger target in Category:COVID-19 pandemic monuments and memorials, and I don't think it would merit discussion in the Battery Park article nor in COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States#May_to_August_2021 or COVID-19_pandemic_in_New_York_City#Timeline where the parade is mentioned but this isn't. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 00:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, COVID-19, and New York. Star Mississippi 00:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the fact that something that has been cancelled doesn't inherently diminish its notability. Furthermore, something that may have been cancelled was planned at some point, without exception, which may provide extra notability. As long as the article is well-sourced and edited to clarify that the monument has been cancelled, then we can keep the article. IncompA 00:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to COVID-19_pandemic_in_New_York_City#Social_impact. This should be mentioned somewhere but I don't believe we need a whole article for this sort of proposal that did not come to fruition. Reywas92^Talk 01:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Just because there hasn't been a monument built doesn't mean there shouldn't be an article on the subject. The topic meets WP:GNG via coverage from multiple secondary sources. While it is true that the topic hasn't been broached since 2021 (at least as far as I could find), and appears to be dead (per a passing mention in the NY Times) [[84]], I did uncover press coverage regarding what the current governor of New York had to say about the proposal [[85]]. This article should be expanded, not deleted. User:Let'srun 01:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but if consensus doesn't exist for that, at the very least, merge to COVID-19_pandemic_in_New_York_City#Social_impact per WP:ATD-M. This certainly passes WP:GNG. For now it also meets WP:SUSTAINED, noting Let'srun's sources, and, for example, a 2023 journal article that references the proposed monument in a discussion of essential workers [86]. In 10 years it may turn out to not meet WP:SUSTAINED and we might have a different discussion, but deleting based on that right now would be more in violation of WP:CRYSTAL than keeping it, because for the moment, the subject still notable. I could see a move to Proposed Essential Workers Monument or something like that, but MOS:AT may prefer the existing shorter title. —siro χ o 07:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Let'srun and Siroxo. Passes WP:SUSTAINED and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion and Adams Memorial (a similar stalled project in Washington, D.C.). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Katsaura-1] Katsaura, Obvious (May 2023). "Architecturations of Pentecostal Power: Contribution to a Sociology of Pentecostal Auditoriums". Space and Culture. 26 (2): 268–278. doi:10.1177/12063312221130241. ISSN 1206-3312. Retrieved 5 August 2023.

[2] Omorogbe, Paul (3 March 2021). "Bishop Wale Oke emerges new PFN president". Nigerian Tribune. Retrieved 5 August 2023.

[1]

[2]