Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 17 August 19 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amritha Meera Vijayan[edit]

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

Non notable actress. Has blink and you miss roles in some movies. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG due to the dearth of references from reliable sources. Created by a single purpose editor who has since been blocked for having a promotional username, probably indicating that the article is a paid one. Jupitus Smart 18:31, 4 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! 19:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: My searches did find these two sources but the first is just about her debut and the second seems to be an indiscriminate database of sorts, so I still think this fails WP:GNG. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 00:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Malayalam Wikipedia article doesn't seem to have any good sources either. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 00:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I also could not find any reliable sources. Not notable enough. Shadow345110 (talk) 22:43, 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. I took a few reads through this one, seeing if there was some way to arrive at a consensus, and it's just not there. At heart, there is a fundamental disagreement over whether the available reference material does or does not meet GNG, and neither side definitively overcame the arguments of the other. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tin Shed Garden Cafe[edit]

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

Single, non-notable restaurant. All coverage is either routine from local sources or part of tourist guides for the area. Also per WP:NOTGUIDE. Willbb234 22:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Oregon. Willbb234 22:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per GNG. Sorry, but nominator's rationale is just plain inaccurate. There's sufficient secondary coverage in non-local sources and the restaurant has been featured in multiple national television programs. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Such as? Willbb234 23:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the primary author listing the sources here that establish notability would make this a much easier "keep" !vote. Not necessary, but if there's going to be back-and-forth discussion, that's the thing that could cut it short most easily. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An overwhelming number of sources on the page are just lists of restaurants to dine at. Others are trivial mentions or are unambiguous advertisements. I'm not convinced that the presence of the restaurant in national television programs assists notability here. I'm not getting any notability establishing hits on an independent WP:BEFORE. —Sirdog (talk) 05:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this relevant to keep/delete? An "overwhelming" number (or any kind of number) of sources that are not sufficient doesn't speak to whether or not there are enough sources that are sufficiently in-depth/reliable. For instance, if an article had 100 sources, of which 95 are passing mentions, and 5 are in-depth coverage in reliable sources, that would be a clear "keep." The ratio has nothing to do with it; meeting a threshold of several strong sources is what we look for. (Note, I haven't reviewed the sources yet myself, and I'm not yet prepared to vote one way or the other.) -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for reaching out! My phraseology was to indicate that most of the sourcing present are just lists, with the remainder being trivial mentions or advertisements (or otherwise not GNG compliant). I further indicate when trying to find sourcing myself that is complaint that I failed. I would certainly vote Keep if there were adequate complaint sourcing, regardless of the volume of inadequate sourcing. Though, given the attendance and discussion below, I'm probably going to review the sources again and try finding more again to ensure I didn't miss anything. —Sirdog (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying, that makes sense. And especially thanks for the detailed table below. I do disagree on some of your assessments, but the specifics make it much easier to discuss. And that took a lot of work! -Pete Forsyth (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Between the variety of coverage in The Oregonian including [1], as well as the PBS "Breakfast Special" episode, and Food Network episode the subject seems very likely to meet CORP. Note some short coverage in NYT [2] which does not meet SIRS, but NYT is a strong signal. —siroχo 08:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Siroxo! Thanks for your analysis.
    I have a concern re. the piece in The Oregonian; it's attributed to "Special to The Oregonian", which largely publishes listicles. I'm not sure this has the same reliability as other pieces in that publication, and the intransparent attribution raises some red flags regarding editorial oversight and independence. I couldn't find any direct evidence that this is problematic, though.
    I can't verify anything about the TV episodes, but it's common for those to be influenced by or at least made in agreement with the business. The business owners sign releases to allow TV networks to air footage of their restaurant and show its branding (which is otherwise copyrighted, like any other work of art), so I don't think those meet the strict independence standards of WP:NCORP.
    As you mention, the NYT source does not provide significant coverage. At best, we have NYT and The Oregonian, and one SIGCOV source is not enough for WP:NCORP. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 15:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NCORP is written for businesses, not for cultural institutions. More is at play for restaurants, bars, and the like, and they often transcend individual organizations; names carry on, legacies, cuisines, etc. ɱ (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Variety of good sources including the NYT. No Swan So Fine (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@No Swan So Fine: nobody's trying to make the point that good sources aren't present but rather that the sources are either not in depth (especially with regards to the tourist guide sources) or local. Even if there are national sources available, the coverage would still have to be in depth and from multiple sources, as outlined at GNG. Willbb234 22:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couldn't disagree more: there's no attempt at creating a tourist guide, the category has many quality entries, and there's actually a group of editors working to delete entries unnecessarily. Maybe next time your vote can include a source assessment. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's my source assessment: NONE of them meet the criteria in my !vote above. --woodensuperman 13:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Documented culture of Portland, Oregon. Nicely-written article. And like siroχo said above, this does pass NCORP. ɱ (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As mentioned above, the TV episodes are likely not independent sources for the purposes of WP:NCORP. I have some concerns re. The Oregonian (also explained above), but even if we accept that source, it's just one SIGCOV source, and that's simply not enough for the notability guideline. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 15:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh, the goal posts are always changing for notability of restaurants. We've been through dozens of these lately, with most editors agreeing national TV coverage counts. Here there's evidence of multiple TV shows covering the restaurant, but now that's not enough... ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. If there is widespread consensus on this TV coverage thing, particularly consensus outside of specific AfDs, I'm very willing to reconsider. However, from what I know about how the industry works, TV coverage can't be strictly independent, if nothing else then because it requires consent from the subjects, which compromises neutrality. Maybe we should open a discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:NCORP? Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 15:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Compromises neutrality? In this article, the TV programs are mentioned in passing and not used to verify specific claims made in the text. I don't think we need to be concerned about neutrality. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not for article content, but independence is essential for sources intended to establish notability. I elaborated on that re. neutrality to demonstrate that independence is affected substantially by the legal requirements of making a TV episode about a business. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 16:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood, but I must strongly disagree with your assessment, especially given the number of times I've seen national TV coverage used as a valid reason for keeping. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I watched the coverage here, and it don't think 5 minutes of excerpts from interviews with customers really does much in the way of establishing notability. Willbb234 18:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Willbb234: I just watched it as well and my impression is the opposite. The fact that this nationally-focused program chose to focus on breakfast in Portland, and that their primary interview (which you don't mention) -- the author of a book about breakfast in Portland -- chose to bring them to this particular restaurant. Five minutes is a pretty substantial amount of time for a news magazine piece, permitting a fair amount of depth. And at the end of the day it is customers who determine what restaurants succeed, fail, or become famous or renowned; vox pop journalism is a well-established practice for secondary sources. The reasons they chose to spoke to these individuals are made clear in the preamble and the way it's presented. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How you feel about one program's coverage doesn't change the fact that non-local outlets have shown an interest in the topic. Clearly the PBS coverage should be counted, as it is created by a major reputable (not to mention, publicly funded) outlet, specific to the topic, and geared for a general audience. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, these concerns should raise some eyebrows. Interviews with customers are certainly not up to the standards of WP:ORGCRIT, particularly with regards to reliability. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 19:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if you don't count a PBS profile, there's Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives. Surely coverage by an independently notable chef on an independently notable TV series broadcast by an independently notable national network counts? Again, splitting hairs when there's plenty more secondary coverage to consider as well. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion isn't about whether or not you believe restaurant articles desrve a place in an encyclopedia but whether there are sufficient reliable sources present, in the article or brought up in this discussion, to establish notability for this particular subject. Those arguing Keep have highlighted several they believe do serve that purpose, it would be helpful if those who believe this article should be Deleted reviewed those sources or made specific, rather than general comments about the sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep based primarily on the TV episodes. The idea that the coverage is not independent because the restaurant cooperates is, frankly, silly; that's like saying that we can't count interviews toward notability because the subject cooperated in agreeing to do the interview. That the shows chose the restaurant to cover is a sign that they consider it worthy of note. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - strong local and independent coverage. Salsakesh (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The following is my personal assessment of the sources as present in the article. I couldn't find any additional sourcing with another WP:BEFORE. I'm happy to discuss any sources that may not be here or errors in the table.
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Sirdog
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
References 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16, 20-23, 34, 37-49, and 51 of Special:PermaLink/1171076823 No List of restaurants to dine at with insufficient commentary and/or commentary is an advertisement and/or is listed as a winner or runner up in a user generated poll ✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?id=-xEA_1nkxcAC&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PA91&dq=%22Tin+Shed%22+portland&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22Tin%20Shed%22%20portland&f=false Yes Yes No Name check ✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35ER8lDXYUE (coverage by PBS) Yes No Entirety of footage is customer / author of book interviews regarding the restaurant Yes ✘ No
https://www.wweek.com/restaurants/2016/07/12/dogs-can-now-get-ice-cream-headaches-thanks-to-portlands-best-dog-menu/ Yes ? No Name check ✘ No
https://www.fastcompany.com/1662936/creative-destinations-portlands-artisan-culture-is-in-full-bloom Yes No Name check ✘ No
https://www.thrillist.com/venue/eat/portland/restaurants/tin-shed Yes No Effectively a promotional advert for the restaurant with no neutral commentary ~ ✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?id=NKXaCwAAQBAJ&dq=%22Tin+Shed+Garden+Cafe%22&pg=PA148#v=onepage&q=%22Tin%20Shed%20Garden%20Cafe%22&f=false Yes ? No Name check ✘ No
https://www.portlandmercury.com/music/2003/06/12/29199/live-music-listings Yes ? No Name check ✘ No
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/travel/01surfacing.html Yes Yes No Name check ✘ No
https://www.oregonlive.com/galleries/LUK3ZS5RCND63NWSQCCPKRQYHI/ Yes Yes No Repeats the same sentence over and over that Yelp says it's No. 1, trivial ✘ No
https://www.wweek.com/portland/article-8615-tin-shed-garden-cafe.html Yes No Effectively a promotional advert for the restaurant with no neutral commentary ~ ✘ No
https://www.wweek.com/portland/article-12046-breakfast-of-champions.html Yes ? No Name check ✘ No
https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2017/may/27/portland-oregon-city-guide-best-hotels-restaurants-bars Yes No Effectively a promotional advert for the restaurant with no neutral commentary ~ ✘ No
https://www.streetroots.org/news/2020/06/17/portland-restaurants-aim-cut-waste-recyclable-and-compostable-take-out-containers-go Yes Yes No Name check x2 ✘ No
https://www.portlandmercury.com/articles/2005/07/28/34167/a-shed-ahead ~ ~ It reads promotional in nature, but there is some neutral commentary, so ultimately I'm torn. Not great, regardless. Yes ~ Partial
https://www.oregonlive.com/life_and_culture/erry-2018/07/d722f284e58631/27_oregon_restaurants_guy_fier.html Yes Yes No Not WP:SIGCOV coverage in list of restaurants reviewed by Guy Fieri ✘ No
https://www.oregonlive.com/life-and-culture/g66l-2019/02/293c802ca2620/these-are-the-portland-restaurants-guy-fieri-visited-on-diners-driveins-and-dives.html Yes Yes No Not WP:SIGCOV coverage in list of restaurants reviewed by Guy Fieri ✘ No
https://www.foodnetwork.com/shows/diners-drive-ins-and-dives/episodes/comfort-and-soul Yes Yes No Name check ✘ No
https://www.oregonlive.com/movies/2010/07/pbs_documentary_breakfast_spec.html Yes Yes No Fails WP:SIGCOV, name checked throughout ✘ No
https://pdx.eater.com/2010/7/12/6726897/tin-shed-and-helsers-on-pbs-portobellos-vegan-pizza-to-go Yes Yes No Name check ✘ No
https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2010/03/portland_still_grapples_with_s.html Yes Yes No Coverage is minimal in relation to entirely different topic ✘ No
https://www.oregonlive.com/dining/2009/12/breakfast_tin_shed_vs_helsers.html Yes Yes I share Actualcpscm's concerns regarding the lack of attribution and the category being dedicated to mostly listicles, but not enough to deny this reliability for this table. Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.oregonlive.com/trending/2023/08/this-portland-restaurant-is-the-most-dog-friendly-dining-experience-in-the-country.html Yes Yes No Not really much more than an announcement that Tin Shed was No. 1 on Yelp with minimal commentary; it's borderline but I think it fails WP:SIGCOV here. ✘ No
https://www.oregonlive.com/life-and-culture/g66l-2019/04/d239d52fc09018/the-ultimate-guide-to-portlands-40-best-brunches.html Yes Yes No Name check ✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?id=ijt8DwAAQBAJ&dq=%22Tin+Shed+Garden+Cafe%22&pg=PT271#v=onepage&q=%22Tin%20Shed%20Garden%20Cafe%22&f=false Yes Yes No This is a book dedicated to discussing restaurants to eat at. 2 paragraphs are given to the Tin Shed. However, in other sections, such as "Po'Shines Cage De La Soul" and "My Fathers Place", they are given significantly more content. Tin Shed's coverage is not comparable, unfortunately. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

—Sirdog (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect to sway the delete voters, but for the record I would count both the PBS episode and the Food Network as appropriate national coverage. I'd recommend checking the Oregonian archives, too. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the fact that you dumped the Unique Eats... book into the first row suggests you've dismissed some good coverage. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the call out regarding Unique Eats, that doesn't meet my rationale for the first row and has been given a separate row at the bottom. —Sirdog (talk) 00:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I'll have to continue agreeing to disagree and let others take over from here. Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for putting this together! I agree with most of it, and The Oregonian on its own is not enough for GNG anyway. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 07:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete based on present state of article.
    The sourcing that has been discussed so far is already enough to justify a keep if it were used properly; I'll point out a few strong disagreements with the table, below. In addition, most of the 20 hits on "Tin Shed" in the Oregonian archives (which are probably behind a paywall for most Wikipedia editors) are strong sources, as well as the book "Breakfast in Bridgetown," which are not included in the article or in this discussion, make points that go directly to notability, but that are not mentioned in this article.
    E.g., the Tin Shed is often used as exemplifying Portland brunch, in discussions of other brunch spots. The length of its lines is mentioned in articles not about this restaurant. The business acumen of owners whose instincts told them that the neighborhood was about to undergo a change is discussed as a dimension of gentrification. Etc etc. But none of that is discussed in the article. I don't understand why we're spending time on an AfD when the article could simply be improved, now or at any point in the last decade. On the specific sources, though:
    • PBS "Breakfast Special": This exemplifies the kind of source that should be used for an article like this. Coverage of an effective, consumer-facing business, exploring why it is popular, is supposed to be based on stuff like a book author's expertise and the perspective of its customers. PBS is a longstanding journalism organization with clearly articulated editorial standards and an extensive track record. There should be no argument on this one, it's exactly the kind of source Wikipedia is supposed to be built on. Furthermore, the fact that PBS covered it is covered by other reliable sources, like the Oregonian, further lending weight to this source.
    • Same is basically true of the Oregonian, Willamette Week, Mercury, and Guardian. The idea that something "reads as promotional in nature" is not the standard we go by; the big concern for something like this is sponsored content, and there's no reason to think any of these organizations would jeapordize their reputations over a little brunch joint. If a place is noted for its popularity and cultural impact, those are real factors, but they are subjective in nature; we shouldn't expect peer reviewed scientific scholarship to evaluate the popularity of restaurants.
    • The two paragraphs in the "Unique Eats" book are substantive, and there's no reason to compare it to other restaurants the book happens to spill more ink on. Significant points (that could be, but are not, articulated in the Wikipedia article) are made.
    • Number 1 Yelp rating, while not significant in and of itself, becomes significant when it is mentioned by multiple reliable secondary sources. I would add a line to the table for the Yelp review, and consider that qualifying, because it's been mentioned in more rigorous sources. Even if their methods are questionable (?),the impact of a Yelp review can have a big impact on a business's reputation and popularity.
    • No comment on the other source evaluations, I haven't reviewed them in detail.
      -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peteforsyth I don't understand. You've said there's enough sourcing to justify keep, but voted delete? I would add Breakfast in Bridgetown as a citation, but the book's contents are not searchable at Google Books. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Another Believer: If you had to state why the Tin Shed is significant in a sentence or two, what would it be? If you put that in the lead section, and attach it to strong sources already in the article, I'll change my !vote. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Breakfast in Bridgetown's 2011 edition also mentions the Tin Shed, and is borrowable/searchable at archive.org. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What else do you think the lead should say? I've added the location, co-owners, year of establishment, TV show appearances, positive reception, and Yelp ranking in national list. The lead also notes that the business is lesbian-owned and dog-friendly, which are both unique. I've added mention of Breakfast in Bridgetown to the article body, without actually adding the book as a citation. (This is possible because of the additional coverage about the book, as you've noted above. Thanks for taking a look at coverage and flagging issues with the source assessment table.) So far, I'm not having luck finding a way to search the book contents at archive.org, if you're able to share a direct URL or add a citation for me? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused as well, Pete Forsyth, given your comments above about the sources available, I'm surprised you arrived at "Delete". Liz Read! Talk! 04:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to make points on both sides, and in so doing I probably made myself hard to follow. Apologies. My concern is not with the sourcing, I wanted to make clear why I think the sourcing is perfectly fine, and could easily be improved. But the improvements needed are to the content of the Wikipedia article itself. I think it can easily be addressed, e.g., by replacing the two places in the article that mention the mere fact that PBS covered it with a clear, concise summary of what the PBS show said about the restaurant and why it's significant. Bottom line, to me, is I see an article that seems to fail our criteria for speedy deletion, by not articulating the significance of the restaurant...and in so doing, it fails the reader, who is probably trying to learn something about the city, or the neighborhood, or the phenomenon of brunch, etc. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Peteforsyth I'm happy to continue discussing specific article changes (though I'd prefer to do this on the article's talk page), but to avoid further confusion, can you change your vote to keep if you feel this topic is notable? Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I put some suggestions on the talk page. I'm not watching this page or that one, if you make changes you want me to look at feel free to ping. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Peteforsyth Thanks for the suggestions. Very helpful! I'll ask one last time if you're willing to change your vote to keep, given your comments on notability/sourcing and interest in seeing this article improved, not deleted. Either way, thanks again for the feedback here and on the talk page. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to the numerous sources from guidebooks, restaurant review sites, etc. we have exclusive coverage from the paper of record in the entire state, The Oregonian which covered the restaurant because it was ranked the #1 restaurant in the country for a unique category. In other words, it's nationally notable. The volume and depth of coverage goes way beyond your average restaurant that gets a local review or two, which makes it clearly notable as a business. Some editors seem biased against restaurants being notable, no matter how much reliable sourcing is provided. Steven Walling • talk 04:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was named the "No. 1 restaurant in the country for dog-friendly dining" on Yelp. You've got to be fucking kidding me if you think that's good enough to make something "nationally notable". Oh, and the relevant source [3] provides some really in depth and significant coverage, doesn't it? Come up with better rationale. Willbb234 22:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may view Yelp as just some dumb user-review restaurant site or app, but it's a global corporation that influences restaurants immensely, and has a ton of data. Using that data, it was determined that of all hundreds of thousands of restaurants for dog-owners to visit in the United States, this is the top-rated to appeal to that clientele group. That is significant. As of 2022, 44.5% of U.S. households own dogs. This is a significant entity to that demographic of tens to hundreds of millions of people. ɱ (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yelp ratings alone don't mean anything and can't be used as a source. The coverage in major newspapers because of the rating is what matters. This is notability 101. Steven Walling • talk 23:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's my point also. Unless I've hit a paywall, the Oregonian source has such little information that it's well off the 'significant' criteria outlined at GNG. Willbb234 11:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you hit a paywall. ɱ (talk) 04:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are eight different citations to The Oregonian. Just one of them has 300+ words specifically on Tin Shed. Steven Walling • talk 06:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just one? No more? That doesn't meet GNG. Try again. Willbb234 17:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. You don't seem to understand the basic criteria of the specific guideline about notability of companies/organizations. The subject "is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." There are, point blank, multiple reliable sources that cover the subject. Some of them are more significant than others, and some of them are more reliable than others. When assessing notability, we look at the big picture of all sources together. Steven Walling • talk 21:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources identified above and the significance of this restaurant that becomes apparent through the same sources. I can't but feel sorry about all the hours that were spent in the discussion above, instead of more important work that gets postponed in the article space. gidonb (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can assure you a lot of time has been wasted discussing restaurant articles at AfD unnecessarily. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are way too many AfDs with poor argumentation. Typically these are done by the dabater type of editors, who focus on one policy or guideline while neglecting others. These end up being huge wastes of time. The intro doesn't convince at all and then the nominators create lengthy discussions, tables, and often also drama. We need to protect WP against this. gidonb (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb I've been flagging issues for over a year, and yet the deletion nominations continue, often indiscriminately and/or by repeat nominators. I could easily supply links to 100+ deletion attempts, of which I can think of a handful which actually resulted in article deletion. If you have any ideas for solutions, I'm all ears. Otherwise, this circling of the drain will seemingly never end. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, THIS IS MY NEW PROPOSAL. We need to create a system where moderators pre-screen each and every AfD, as they already do with prodding. As I see it, a template would appear at the article that it is pre-AfDd, with the intro already in it (these are long so collapsed). Then a moderator squad at the touch of two buttons will reject with rationale or put the AfD into motion. This proposal has the potential to save Wikipedia from collapsing as a project. No less than that, as the current situation is EXTREMELY problematic. gidonb (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with universal pre-screening—as we've seen at Articles for creation—is that it instantly creates a huge backlog. There aren't enough admins to review everything up front in a timely manner. A simpler approach would be to create a better proposal for Wikipedia:Notability (restaurants), which failed and which leaves us with WP:CORP that is hopelessly broad. The lack of a clear policy is what leaves it open to perpetual argument. Steven Walling • talk 17:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the relevant example is the pre-screening of prods. That works really well as excellent articles would just dissapear when no one would notice the prod. Even today the procedure is WIDELY abused but to little avail. There are huge gains to be made through mergers and especially by editing more in the article space. We do not get to that enough as people keep submitting and mass-submitting all these baseless AfDs. It only gets worse over time. TIME FOR ACTION IS NOW!!!! gidonb (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you mean more one-sentence "articles" like Semilla? We need less of that, not more. Reywas92Talk 13:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your preference to delete stubs about Michelin-starred restaurants perfectly demonstrates part of the problem... ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reywas92, it's not a pleasant comment and highly misleasing. Right under me making the case for MORE mergers and LESS afds, you address me about an article I have not edited and on which I have not expressed an opionion. In my book, short articles, also of notable subjects, should always be considered for mergers, as their content may fit elsewhere without creating situations of undue, while reducing fragmentation and repetition at WP. The existence of short articles STRENGTHENS the case I made against excessive AfDs, as our priorities are wrong and the amount of AfDs has become insane. I explain this RIGHT ABOVE your comment. gidonb (talk) 01:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, effort should be put into merging short articles and expanding in existing articles or lists, not creating sub-stubs. But AFDs may be appropriate if there's not a good merge target or users can't make articles with more than a couple sentences in the first place. Reywas92Talk 04:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One man's "sub-stub" is another one's article ripe for expansion. The first version of Noma, the restaurant rated best in the world five times over, was three sentences when it was started. Steven Walling • talk 06:05, 22 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! 01:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf States Utilities[edit]

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

Not enough reliable sources to be a standalone article, possibly fails WP:NPOV, and hasn't been updated much. signed, 64andtim (chat) 22:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Both the nominator and the discussant are relatively new editors, I hope some editors with more experience can also review this article which was created by a longstanding editor/administrator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The only SIRS source I could find was the Texas Handbook source in the article, but that doesn't singlehandedly pass NCORP or GNG, and I cannot find anything else. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 00:36, 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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1450 Internet army[edit]

1450 Internet army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not cite any WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the all sources used in the article are reliable Chinese sources. You can't say that it is not reliable by saying that it has no WP:RS English sources, this is discrimination Sharontse121 (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody above had said or implied that sources in languages other than English can't be reliable. Please avoid straw men and other kinds of misleading claims, see also below. Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No justification as to why the sources used are not reliable. Sources are not required to be in English. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and because alongside other dubious or outright false claims by the article's author, at least some of the references they offered do not support the claims they were cited for. I spot-checked two of citations in this revision: [4] did not support the claim in the article as written. [2] actually said pretty much the opposite of what Sharontse121 claimed (Weibo denied that its traffic had dropped, also, the source does not even mention the Wikipedia article's subject). As for the other sources cited, the burden is on the author to explain why they should be considered WP:REPUTABLE (i.e. having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy). Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per HaeB's reasoning. Dubious sources and notability. GuardianH (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Zhu, Hao 诸皓; Ai, Liang 艾凉 (2022-09-01). "民进党当局的红人，新冠阳性" [The popular man of the DPP authorities, positive for COVID-19]. Yangtse Evening Post (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-08-14. Retrieved 2023-08-14.

      The article notes: "众所周知，绿营与网军有着千丝万缕的联系。被称作“数位政务委员”的唐凤，则被公认为“1450”网军头目。 ... “1450”系台湾民众对民进党网军的戏称。2019年，有媒体爆料，民进党当局编列1450万元招募人员在社交平台进行“信息实时澄清”工作。长期以来台当局官方豢养网军的谣言被证实。“1450”网军的名号自此不胫而走。近年，这支“编外部队”在搅动台海局势、制造两岸隔阂、抹黑“甩锅”大陆等方面极尽能事。而这一切都离不开“头目”唐凤的“努力”。"

      From Google Translate: "As we all know, the green battalion and the cyber army are inextricably linked. Tang Feng, known as the "digital political committee member", is recognized as the leader of the "1450" cyber army. ... "1450" is a nickname used by Taiwanese people for the DPP cyber army. In 2019, the media broke the news that the DPP authorities allocated 14.5 million yuan to recruit personnel to carry out "information clarification in real time" on social platforms. For a long time, the rumor that the Taiwan government officially supports the cyber army has been confirmed. The name "1450" cyber army has spread like wildfire since then. In recent years, this "non-staff force" has done its best to stir up the situation in the Taiwan Strait, create barriers between the two sides of the Strait, and discredit the "dumping pot" of the mainland. And all of this is inseparable from the "effort" of the "leader" Tang Feng."

    2. Ren, Chengqi 任成琦 (2022-04-25). Liu, 劉潔妍; Yan, 燕勐 (eds.). "造謠抹黑離間兩岸 網暴霸凌打壓異己 民進黨豢養"1450"作惡多端" [Spreading rumors to smear the two sides of the strait, cyberbullying and bullying to suppress dissidents. The DPP feeds "1450" to do all kinds of evil]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-08-14. Retrieved 2023-08-14.

      The article notes: "“1450”是外界對民進黨網軍的戲稱。2019年3月，民進黨當局農業主管部門有一項“加強農業訊息因應對策計劃”，... “1450=民進黨網軍”的說法由此而生。 “1450”肩負雙重“使命”。一是與民進黨當局呼應配合，給綠營出台的政策背書，瘋狂打壓國民黨、民眾黨等競爭對手﹔二是抹黑大陸的社會經濟、惠台政策，就港澳和新疆事務造謠生事。在香港“修例風波”中，處處都有“1450”的幕后黑影。"

      From Google Translate: ""1450" is the outside world's nickname for the DPP cyber army. In March 2019, the DPP authority's agricultural department had a "Strengthen Agricultural Information Response Plan", and the saying "1450=DPP cyber army" was born from this. "1450" shoulders a double "mission". The first is to cooperate with the DPP authorities, endorse the policies issued by the green camp, and frantically suppress competitors such as the Kuomintang and the People's Party; In Hong Kong's "revision storm", there are shadows behind the scenes of "1450" everywhere."

    3. Yang, Jiaying 楊佳穎; Zhang, Lixun 張立勳 (2019-05-11). "1450…網軍新代名詞" [1450... A new synonym for cyber army]. China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-08-14. Retrieved 2023-08-14.

      The article notes: "今年「加強農業訊息因應對策計畫」編1450萬元對外招標，聘請人員做政策行銷、輿情處理，遭質疑「養網軍」，引發議論。儘管農委會主委陳吉仲上火線澄清，如今「1450」仍儼然成網友口中「網軍」新代名詞。... 不過，此案掀波後，也讓「1450」成「網軍」代名詞。藍委林奕華日前在農產品產銷失衡記者會直言，農委會最紅代名詞變「1450」，..."

      From Google Translate: "This year's "Strengthening the Agricultural Information Response Plan" compiled 14.5 million yuan for external bidding, and hired personnel to do policy marketing and public opinion handling. It was questioned about "raising the Internet Army" and sparked discussion. Although Chen Jizhong, chairman of the Council of Agriculture, went to the fire line to clarify, "1450" still seems to have become a new synonym for "net army" among netizens. ... However, after the case broke out, "1450" became synonymous with "net army". Lin Yihua, the Blue Committee, said bluntly at the press conference on the imbalance between agricultural production and sales a few days ago that the most popular pronoun of the Council of Agriculture has changed to "1450"."

    4. Chen, Yiwen 陳怡文 (2023-03-16). "誕網軍稱號！農委會遇問題只解釋不解決　陳吉仲：若有1450怎連解釋都沒做好" [Birthday net army title! The Council of Agriculture only explains but does not solve problems. Chen Jizhong: If there is 1450, why didn’t they even explain it well?]. Nextapple News [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-08-14. Retrieved 2023-08-14.

      The article notes: "農委會主委陳吉仲今接受媒體專訪，被問題農產行銷中與1450(網軍)界線，及網友留言稱農委會光是解釋沒有解決農業問題，他坦言是他的問題，因做100件事也沒想對外說1件，只想去解決問題，而解釋是他最該改善的地方，畢竟外界認為有1450，可是有1450怎麼會變成連解釋都沒有做好。"

      From Google Translate: "Chen Jizhong, the chairman of the Council of Agriculture, accepted an exclusive interview with the media. He was questioned about the boundary between the marketing of agricultural products and 1450 (net army), and netizens left messages saying that the Council of Agriculture’s mere explanation did not solve agricultural problems. He admitted frankly It's his problem, because he did 100 things and didn't want to say 1 to the outside world, he just wanted to solve the problem, and the explanation is what he should improve the most. After all, the outside world thinks that there are 1450, but how can there be 1450? Not done well."

    5. Guo, Qiongli 郭瓊俐 (2020-09-03). "【春露專訪】1450網軍始祖現身：我就是風，何必帶風向？" [[Chunlu Interview] The ancestor of the 1450 Internet Army appeared: I am the wind, why should I bring the direction of the wind?]. Business Today [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-08-14. Retrieved 2023-08-14.

      The article notes: "國民黨前立委陳宜民去年爆料，農委會「108年度加強農業訊息因應對策計畫」，編列1450萬元養網軍，而先前得標廠商「春露」、「樂齊」兩家公司是同一批人，春露公司因此被冠上「1450網軍始祖」的封號。今年8月，媒體再踢爆，春露公司淡出農委會，「轉進」台鐵，兩度得標台鐵局標案，春露公司的神祕色彩，再度引發各界好奇。"

      From Google Translate: "Chen Yimin, a former legislator of the Kuomintang, broke the news last year that the Council of Agriculture's "108 Year Strengthening Agricultural Information Response Plan" compiled 14.5 million yuan to support the Internet army, and the two companies "Chunlu" and "Leqi" that had previously won the bid were the same Because of this batch of people, Chunlu Company was given the title of "the ancestor of the 1450 cyber army". In August of this year, the media broke out again. Chunlu Company faded out of the Council of Agriculture and "transferred" to Taiwan Railways."

    6. Zhao, Youning 趙宥寧 (2019-05-06). "1450的網軍暗黑兵團？羅智強再揭「假韓粉」網軍的3大特點" [1450's dark corps of cyber army? Luo Zhiqiang reveals the 3 major characteristics of the "fake Han fan" online army]. The Storm Media [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-08-14. Retrieved 2023-08-14.

      The article notes: "羅智強今再分析，這群「賴清德認證的1450網軍」現已兵分兩路，其中「大野狼軍團」正面直攻韓國瑜、郭台銘；而另一邊「小癟三軍團」則偽裝韓粉，全面分化藍營，猛攻趙少康、唐湘龍、李艷秋等意見領袖，為韓國瑜樹敵。"

      From Google Translate: "According to Luo Zhiqiang's further analysis, this group of "1450 Internet Army certified by Lai Qingde" has been divided into two groups. Among them, the "Big Wild Wolf Army" directly attacked Han Guoyu and Guo Taiming; Fully divide the blue camp, attack Zhao Shaokang, Tang Xianglong, Li Yanqiu and other opinion leaders, and make enemies for Han Guoyu."

    7. Fu, Shihan 傅詩涵 (2020-03-16). "農委會又養網軍？　1450標案公司再度得標" [The Council of Agriculture raises an Internet army again? The 1450 bidding company won the bid again] (in Chinese). TVBS. Archived from the original on 2023-08-14. Retrieved 2023-08-14.

      The article notes: "去年大選期間，國民黨立委質疑農委會養網軍，因此產生網軍叫1450的說法，當時得標的公司，今年一月底再度標下農委會828萬元網路行銷的標案，再度引發話題。"

      From Google Translate: "During last year’s general election, the KMT’s legislators questioned the COA’s support for the Internet Army, which led to the idea that the Internet Army was called 1450. The company that won the bid at the time bid again at the end of January this year for the COA’s 8.28 million yuan network marketing bid, which once again triggered topic."

    8. Zhang, Yajing 张亚静 (2022-05-09). "华视被爆卷入"1450网军"风波？民进党操纵媒体绿出新高度！" [China TV was involved in the "1450 Internet Army" storm? The DPP manipulates the media to reach new heights!]. taiwan.cn [zh] (in Chinese). Taiwan Affairs Office. Archived from the original on 2023-08-14. Retrieved 2023-08-14.

      The article notes: "民进党当局拿着台湾民众的纳税钱豢养网军早已成为“公开的秘密”，而台农业主管部门正是“1450网军”代名词的始作俑者。2019年，该部门编列1450万元新台币预算，拟在岛内网络论坛等社交平台发布信息，被民代质疑是在招募网络水军。“1450=民进党网军”的说法由此而生。"

      From Google Translate: "It has long been an "open secret" for the DPP authorities to use the tax money of the Taiwanese people to feed the cyber army, and Taiwan's agricultural authorities are the initiators of the term "1450 Internet Army". In 2019, the department prepared a budget of 14.5 million NT dollars and planned to release information on social platforms such as online forums on the island. It was questioned by the Democratic Party that it was recruiting cyber trolls. The saying "1450=DPP Cyber Army" was born from this."

    9. Less significant coverage:
      1. "Taiwan Election: One Day Out". Stanford Internet Observatory. 2020-01-20. Archived from the original on 2023-08-14. Retrieved 2023-08-14.

        The article notes: "Most recently, the New Party (politically close to the KMT) live-streamed a KMT press conference discussing Wang Liqiang on YouTube and Facebook. During the livestream, live chat was deactivated, but before it was, several commentators decried the “1450” (alleged DPP cyber army, which Han Kuo-yu supporter call “1450”) for “being at work”. Many comments were written in simplified characters, which are used in the PRC Mainland but not in Taiwan."

      2. Yun, Chen; Chung, Jake (2021-03-06). "Jaw vows to train Internet celebrities". Taipei Times. Archived from the original on 2023-08-14. Retrieved 2023-08-14.

        The article notes: "Jaw, a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) member, said that the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) fears regarding China’s influence via the Internet has been exaggerated, and the DPP has proven itself adept at using the Internet to influence others, citing the “1450” controversy. The term “1450” — derived from a situation in 2019 in which the Council of Agriculture budgeted NT$14.5 million (US$512,802 at the current exchange rate) to hire four online content curators — has been used to sarcastically describe netizens allegedly paid by the DPP to criticize its opponents online. ... Training content creators would provide them with a source of income, although the proposal is not aimed at “1450” influencers, he said."

      3. Wang, Meiqin (Fall 2022). "Mass Burial: A Case of Artivism in Taiwan". Field (22). ISSN 2694-0094. Archived from the original on 2023-08-14. Retrieved 2023-08-14.

        The article notes: "As a matter of fact, citizens voicing critiques toward government policies tend to be verbally attacked by the DPP government-supported “internet navy” or “online army,” known as “1450,” who have been employed to misinform the public by smearing the reputations of social, cultural, and environmental activists who raised their concerns publicly.[5] ... The “1450” army has been waging intensive media attacks on individuals who expressed doubt or critique in public about the government’s control over the interpretation of the pandemic or policies implemented to prevent its spread.[7]"

      4. Lin, Yuting 林郁庭 (2020-04-22). "敦睦艦隊防疫出包！馬英九cue蔡英文道歉 網曝1450想法" [Dunmu Fleet's pandemic prevention package! Ma Ying-jeou cue Tsai Ing-wen apologizes, net exposure 1450 thoughts]. China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-08-14. Retrieved 2023-08-14.

        The article notes: "馬英九此話一出，引起網友們熱議，許多留言中可一窺1450又要如何護航。"

        From Google Translate: "As soon as Ma Ying-jeou's words came out, netizens heatedly discussed, and many comments gave a glimpse of how 1450 will escort."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow 1450 Internet army (traditional Chinese: 1450網軍; simplified Chinese: 1450网军) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we get a review of at least some of the sources recently discovered? Even better if a few could find their way into the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Cunard's Chinese sources, according to the translated excerpts he posted, seem to be SIRS. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 00:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Checking a few of Cunard's sources confirms this definitely meets WP:GNG. I also believe it meets WP:ORG, however I don't think that would be strictly required for a perceived organization. —siroχo 02:04, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restlezz (musician)[edit]

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

The sources that are available are PR sources in Nigerian newspapers. I am suspecting that the creator is paid to make these edits and the articles in the Nigerian papers are there to aid him in his undisclosed paid editing. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Reading Beans (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also note that [[File:Restlezz holding plaque.jpg]] was uploaded on the same month of writing this page on Wiki. Definitely for promotional purposes. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    File:Restlezz holding plaque.jpg was added so as to improve the subject notability status to the new page reviewers so that the subject charting record would be used as a point for the subject notability and not the other way around about it being a way to promote the subject the article clearly meets up with wikipedia standards for neutrality because no promotional tag was added in the last couple months it was created. with love reading beans Digitalageohio (talk) 02:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A photograph was uploaded to support the subject's notability?!? Under which criteria would that be proof or even an "improvement", as you wrote, of notability? This is just original work undertaken by a contributor for purposes of promotion, acting either in a professional capacity or as a fan. Come on. -The Gnome (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rapper from central Utah, popular in Nigeria. Good grief, this is getting silly. There are no sources other than what's in the article, from Nigeria. Long way from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good day @Oaktree b i think you are ignoring other sources like resident advisor, the source, all hiphop and earmilk they too are notable sources for music related topics according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Electronic_music/Sources and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources with love from the ohio. Digitalageohio (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sock strike. -The Gnome (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Significant Coverage The subject has had significant coverage you can look over the citations he was on an interview with Earmilk a Reliable trusted source for Wikipedia on music-related subjects.
Reliable Wikipedia already listed these sources as reliable so the citations from these sources were used in the article.
Sources and it's not from a single source it's from multiple sources, not just one and they all meet Wikipedia standards for neutrality and reliability.
Independent of the subject The sources used for citations are independent of the subject as you can use they are from Major Newspapers publication that can't sell their reputation because of a subject.
As you can see the Subject Restlezz meets all the standards for Wikipedia neutrality and notability as stated in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline
Talking About Notability the subject has a Knowledge Panel Generated by Google Knowledge Panels that cant be bought or created it's autogenerated when an entity is a public figure that is well known AchillesWinner94 (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AchillesWinner94's contributions to Wikipedia are almost exclusively on the contested article. -The Gnome (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For notability the subject restlezz has a Google Knowledge Panel which can only be generated for notable musicians which their fans are looking up daily. also note that all the citations used on the subject article meet up with Wikipedia standards for neutrality and notability Tribune online, Vanguard this are independent bodies that are considered neutral by Wikipedia. All hiphop which is a reliable source for American news information has articles on the subject plus Earmilk also has information on the subject. plus with my investigations the subject has a good charting record if he is not notable then he will not be able to do that so in a nutshell.
The subject has multiple coverages in independent sources that meet up with [1] and [2] and also [3] for notability and neutrality .
The subject has a generated knowledge panel By Google which is given to notable musicians
These are reasons enough to keep this article from deletion with what I have seen so far.Digitalageohio (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sockstrikeGirth Summit (blether) 11:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: FYI: Having a Google Knowledge Panel is not a sign of notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sock strike. -The Gnome (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThere's more then enough proof of reliable sources for this subjects notability. Some of you are skipping over the fact he has coverage from major American publications too that meet the reliable sources for Wikipedias list.
AchillesWinner94 (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Striking off duplicate !vote. -The Gnome (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Digitalageohio's comments are being stricken off because the user has been identified as a sockpuppet and blocked indefinitely. The above comments are left up in order to provide context for the rebuttal immediately below. -The Gnome (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You keep posting up Wikipedia's guidelines in unnecessary detail and repeatedly too, Digitalageohio. This is simply clutter masquerading as argument. You are the creator of the contested article so you might find it obligatory to defend your creation but, to the point, the sources are not enough in either quantity or quality to satisfy then notability criteria. Simple as that. But let's cut deeper.
Forensics
• The most known source quotes is the Billboard one, whose article, however, is not about Restlezz but about "the Rise of Yo Gotti and Collective Music Group". Restlezz is not even mentioned there. If you think that Yo Gotti's notability rubs off on Restlezz on account of their collaboration you are mistaken. Then we get assorted reviews of records, such as the Earmilk review of Tyrant Takeover, a one-liner of "Get It How U Live" in MusicApple, and so on. But these are not about Sandoval.
• The article quotes twice the same link to a Nigerian Tribune 2023 article, written by a "content creator," but that's not too important. What's important and rather revelatory is that Restlezz "does not [even] have a record label deal" and is just now "making a name for himself in the music industry." Yet, you want this artist, one among literally millions in the same place as him, to have a Wikipedia biography. The article also quotes an article in Vanguard that rips open the advertorial aspect of most such "sources." Both Tribune and Vanguard have slavishly and lazily repeated the same paragraph about Restlezz fed to them by the artist's people. This one: After realizing the importance of networking, Sandoval Jr reached out to artists outside of Ogden. He has since worked with prominent artists such as Yo Gotti, T-Pain, Bizarre of D12, Stat Quo, Mistah Fab, and Big Omeezy. He has over a million streams on Spotify, has charted iTunes twice, and has been featured in multiple articles, including Allhiphop, The Source, and Thisis50."
Which makes the claim about "independent sourcing" laughable.
• We also get listings of Restlezz music in Spotify but this is like offering as a source the phone directory: Spotify lists all its content.
• Another link is thrice offered. The Source had an article about Restlezz as an "up and coming" artist like a myriad of other aspiring artists. And we are fed that article three times, which maybe is right because it's actually an admonition to wait, to suggest that it's just simply too soon for a Wiki bio, folks. -The Gnome (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i feel since the subject meets Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability guidelines and standards the article should not be deleted. Digitalageohio (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as was pointed out time and again here, unsubstantiated assertions that "the subject is notable" do not amount to much in an AfD discussion. The subject, as shown in detail above, most certainly does not meet the required criteria of verifiable notability. Perhaps, after some time he will. -The Gnome (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • CU note I have just blocked the article's creator, Digitalageohio, as a sock of Oneboygreen. I've have struck through their !vote above, but they have made quite a few other comments here and it would be tiresome to go through striking them all; suffice it to say that they should be disregarded. Girth Summit (blether) 11:50, 23 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. unanimous consensus to keep and even relister has said "the article should be Kept". (non-admin closure) Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 02:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minecraft server[edit]

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

Fails WP:IINFO and WP:NOTINHERITED. While there are a small number of notable Minecraft servers, such as Mineplex and Hypixel, there's no indication that Minecraft servers in general are notable as a distinct topic from the game that runs on them. The server is just a component of the game; what notable features of multiplayer Minecraft are included here could easily be described in the main article without making it too long, and other things like the "Management" section are descriptions of aspects of running any popular multi-user server which are certainly not unique to this game. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move to List of Minecraft servers and orient the article around that. Some of the listed servers are independently notable, so it seems to serve a valid navigational purpose. The concept seems at least somewhat notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, in addition to everything already on the page, USA Today covers this in general as a distinct topic. 2601:204:C901:B740:5D4F:EE1B:4A41:2B4A (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Blablubbs (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable topic passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources. I don't see how this fails either INDISCRIMINATE or NOTINHERITED. The main article is already way too long, let alone if this content was there. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 20:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per replies. Panamitsu (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article provides encyclopedic content, and very much not indiscriminate in what it includes. Neither is the topic inherited solely because Hypixel and Mineplex have been reported on a lot while the subject of servers has less of it. In fact, there is enough written on the subject, which has historical, legal, and financial differences from traditional game servers that make it unique. Though the 'Notable servers' section takes up a chunk of the article, there's substantial prose independent of it. (Worth mentioning that the list's selection criteria, unwritten, is high and that people keep trying to add their server onto the list. Making it a pure list is going in the opposite direction of the raised nomination statement.) Merging it with the Minecraft article is a bad idea because it's bloated and unfocused already. SWinxy (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SIGCOV, but agree with ZX on moving the page. Conyo14 (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per hellknowz, oppose move / listification. I do not understand how this fails WP:SIGCOV or how it's WP:IINFO. I see more than enough sources that are clearly specifically about Minecraft multiplayer servers and not WP:INHERITED from Minecraft. Leijurv (talk) 04:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I don't believe this article is indiscriminate. However, I do think there is an argument that there is a significant overlap with game server, hence the listification in order to emphasize what parts about it are worthy of separate mention. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, separate standalone topic per the replies, and the Minecraft article is also hell when it comes to length, merging a servers list into the main article could possibly fall under game guide territory. No opinion on moving to List of Minecraft servers or to keep it here, I just think it's worth keeping in some form. NegativeMP1 (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is an overwhelming consensus that at least some of the 67 references in this article provide SIGCOV to this subject and the article should be Kept...in the future, it would be helpful to other participants and the closer if you identified at least 3 that were particularly crucial in establishing notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the WP:THREE, probably: Blocks with friends: How to run your own Minecraft server, The Future Of Minecraft's Biggest Servers, and Minecraft Realms hopes to make an increasingly complex game more family-friendly. SWinxy (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, SWinxy, I usually don't get an immediate response like that to a relisting comment. Liz Read! Talk! 01:14, 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 keep‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Revolution Smile[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Revolution Smile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Summer Ever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
We Are in This Alone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
At War with Plastic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Between these four articles, there is but one reference, and it is to a profile on the band from MTV which is a dead link (archive). Beyond that, I could only find brief pieces on the band (MTV newspiece; one-sentence album review from Spin) which don't impress much. The band does have multiple notable members (Shaun Lopez and Tim McCord), apparently multiple releases with Geffen Records, and per the page they received plenty of high profile coverage, but I didn't see any evidence of that in my search so it doesn't help much. Perhaps this is more a call for a search party than a proper AfD because I can't imagine any editor would lie about that coverage existing, but if we can't find it then I think we're left without a choice but to delete. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that there have been two previous AfDs on this band. The first ended with a keep based on apparent notability, though that was 2006 and the standards have certainly be raised since. The second, from 2008, included a bunch of articles, some of which (including this one) were kept while others may have been merged, though the closing statement isn't entirely clear on that. At the very least, there is some precedent in this band's favor. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as there is an AllMusic staff written bio here and an album review here. I haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep moving to full keep as apart from the AllMusic sources identified above ive found the following reliable sources coverage at IGN here, Punk News here, Ink19 here, MTV here, CMJ here and here. There may be more newspaper coverage as I don't have access to paywalled services but I think there is enough coverage for a pass of WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:09, 15 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! 22:00, 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. The source analysis seems compelling and correctly applies the right policy. The delete argument is therefore the most compelling. Spartaz Humbug! 16:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Transcarga[edit]

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

1. Lacks independent sources. A Google search found no coverage of the airline, just self published sources or press releases. One of the website which I thought was independent is aircargonews.com, however after reading it fully, I was thinking that this was just a press release and not a news release. I tried everything I could to improve the article.

2. The "History" section is unsourced. Even a Google search couldn't find any mention of that. Kaseng55 (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some analysis of these new sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @Liz: If I understand correctly, would you like more details regarding the references content? --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, NoonIcarus, that would be helpful. But the point I was trying to make when I wrote the relisting comment is that we needed more participants here to express their point of view on the sources you found. Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Ohh, alright. Many thanks! Please let me know if more information is needed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ElNacional (first article) is 3 sentences, one of which is devoted to a quote from the president of the group. Insufficient content to meet CORPDEPTH
  • Elnacional (second article) discusses issues relating to customs declarations between USA and Venezuelan and relies *entirely* on information provided by the president of the topic company. It also lacks in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH.
  • LaVerdad de Vargas (article 1) discusses a complaint against the company by their workers but it does not provide sufficient information *about the company*, fails CORPDEPTH
  • LaVerdad de Vargas (article 2) also discusses a complaint, fails CORPDEPTH for the same reasons.
  • LaVerdad de Vargas (article 3) also discusses a complaint, also fails CORPDEPTH
  • LaVerdad de Vargas (article 4) also discusses a complaint, same failure to meet CORPDEPTH
  • La Libertad article is a report that an investigation was opened into an incident involving one of the topic company's planes. It doesn't discuss the company in detail, fails CORPDEPTH
  • Caracol article discusses the impact to the operations of the airport in Bogotá due to an incident involving one of the topic company's aircraft. Fails CORPDEPTH as above.
None of those sources come close to meeting the criteria for establishing notability. It isn't about finding mention of the company in a Google search, we need substantial independent weighty opinion/analysis/etc written by someone unaffiliated to the topic company. HighKing++ 13:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"A complaint" seems like an oversimplification for La Verdad de Vargas' articles. They talk about several labour disputes, including one instance where the workers went on without a bonus paycheck for at least five months. The articles also include a protest of at least 150 workers for similar reasons, lack of severance payment, and other delayed payments, information that can be added to the article. From what I understand, coverage about the workers is coverage about the company as well. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who talks about labour disputes? Only the workers. Interviews and quotes from the workers, nothing else. The workers are not "unaffiliated to the subject" which is required by ORGIND anyway. Even leaving that aside, my summary is accurate because the focus of all 4 LVdV articles are labour dispute complaints but no in-depth information in any of those articles about the company. There's nothing wrong with using these sources to support facts in an article but we require must more from sources that are to be used to establish notability. HighKing++ 16:39, 25 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 Nairametrics. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ugodre Obi-Chukwu[edit]

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

Sources available about subject are press releases or articles talking about his organisation Nairametrics. No in-depth discussion about him in independent, reliable sources. Redirect made was undone by the creator which means that the decision was not welcomed. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Reading Beans (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject is very prominent in Nigeria and even outside the country. It is the sources I found that I used in the creation of the page. However, I may need to dig deeper in searching for more sources or something like that. But I can assure you of his notability within the African continent on subjects around economics, marketing and the corporate finance. @Reading Beans Oyindebrah (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oyindebrah, I am aware that he is prominent in these subjects. He is writing about this subject and talking about this subjects, but, who's writing about him? Best, Reading Beans (talk) 05:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now if fewer people write about him, does that diminish his notability or noteworthiness? Just curious Oyindebrah (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oyindebrah, notability? Yes. Noteworthiness? No. It only means he’s not yet notable. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 20:37, 17 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! 21:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the reason given by the nominator. The sources cited mainly focused their discussion on the company he founded and Wikipedia notability is not hereditary or transferable. I would have favoured redirect to the company but holding it back since the creator had reverted the redirect. Noneate (talk) 10:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or worst, Draftify Although, the article doesn't currently read like an encyclopedic entry. I believe instead of setting the article on fire it could be worked on, there may be more reliable sources available that can be used, and of course, the article needs to be re-written to properly fit Wikipedia's tone. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vanderwaalforces, are you saying that it is too soon? Best, Reading Beans (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Reading Beans If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered.
    That is per policy, but I think sources exist but I haven’t find out. So, pretty much WP:TOOSOON sort. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 04:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you think that sources exist, but, where are they? I always withdraw my nomination when independent, non-primary sources with significant coverage are provided. I always do. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 05:18, 26 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! 21:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Natuna Malay[edit]

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

Another spurious article about an Indonesian language. I'm afraid much of this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I wouldn't say that any regional language is regulated by Badan Bahasa (there's actually little support for these in Indonesia), but that's a minor nitpick. The dialects section is very questionable, looking like an amalgamation of random sources that happen to discuss (or mention) variation within the language. As it stands, this is better off removed or rewritten. Semmiii (talk) 17:56, 11 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! 21:56, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cremilda Santana[edit]

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

Article recently deleted in the pt.WP via AfD. It fails WP:N, WP:ANYBIO, WP:ARTIST and any other notability criteria. In-depth coverage about this person can't be found anywhere. Also, it seems a case of WP:PAID and cross-wiki spam, since all the articles about this person in the other WPs were created by the same account/editor. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 15:43, 4 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! 17:30, 11 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! 21:56, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rotimi Williams[edit]

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

I'm not sure how a farmer becomes notable, but the article doesn't make a great claim for it. My before came up with little. Fails WP:GNG Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:42, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parkinson's Europe[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NORG - very little in the way of secondary coverage. Maintenance tag since 2014. Qcne (talk) 21:38, 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Canyon[edit]

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

Article as written violates WP:NOTPROMO. Sources are not reliable, many not independent. I see some 2015 coverage of a similarly named place in Arizona, but based on this content, it does not seem to be about this community. —siroχo 09:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep/Improve a Google search comes up with articles, mostly about how expensive the houses are in this community. I found some articles 1, 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisJem (talk • contribs) 18:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Including further discussion on the known sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see some additional assessment on newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - While some references don't indicate passing WP:NOTE, that doesn't negate that others as Eastmain has pointed out do. Oakshade (talk) 20:13, 24 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 appears to be that sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 00:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CricTracker[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are routine business news. Brochure advertising article. scope_creepTalk 08:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has used more than 500 links from CricTracker as reliable references for information on dozens of articles. Carlmumba (talk) 08:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's absolutely possible that the site is a reliable source, but that alone doesn't make it notable. Shells-shells (talk) 09:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Note that previous revisions of the article had more references which also did not seem to contribute to notability. I haven't found any significant media coverage of the site yet. Shells-shells (talk) 09:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is tough to find media sources that discuss other media sources in depth, but it seems to me that this one isn't even close to the notable/non-notable line. It's just a fact that their stories are discussed in other respected publications such as Wisden and national newspapers. This isn't any reflection on their suitability as a RS for articles on en.wiki, which is a different issue. JMWt (talk) 10:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether their stories are discussed in other venues is neither here nor there. What is important and based on consensus is notability policy. For this it is a WP:NCORP and even the terrible WP:HEYMANN attempt doesn't come close to meeting it. scope_creepTalk 11:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well it isn't "here nor there" when we are talking about media organisations which are not easily covered by NCORP. JMWt (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All media organisations are covered by NCORP. If your confused about that you shouldn't be taking in Afd. scope_creepTalk 12:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your advice. Maybe stick to the topic in future. If you need any assistance in understanding why media orgs are difficult to judge using the normal notability criteria, you might like to read the essay WP:NMEDIA rather than making derogatory remarks about others JMWt (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Up until two days ago that article didn't have any references to speak of, when it was named as a paid for article, created by a UPE group that was named up at coin. Curious how then, nobobody mentioned any of that. Now it is suddently important. Now all of sudden its a media company. I see no WP:SECONDARY sources that satisfies WP:SIRS per WP:THREE. It it has a whole bunch routine business news, like any other startup. scope_creepTalk 13:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a source is used by other sources doesn't, to my knowledge, have any impact on its notability. An organization's work could be cited a hundred times, but unless some of those parties citing its work actually discuss the organization itself, I don't really see how anything could be written about it based on reliable, independent sources. If you can't write about it based on reliable, independent sources then it's not notable. Shells-shells (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per WP:THREE its normal practice to show three references that prove the company is notable. If you have three references, post them. scope_creepTalk 20:28, 16 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! 21:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm unable to find anything about this site. It's been cited a few times in books, but there's nothing on it. The articles cited in the current version read like press releases. SWinxy (talk) 20:19, 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 keep‎. Star Mississippi 00:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Fraser[edit]

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

This article is primarily based on primary sources, and when I tried to find some coverage, it was negative information related to a dispute with his former girlfriend, which is currently pending in court. Despite this coverage, I don't think it's about him per se, but rather about an event, and he has not been convicted yet, so we can't add it to the article per the WP:BLP guideline.

He is very early in his career, and this seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Also, this article was created in bad faith anyway. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BADFAITH. Simzeit (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1keyhole (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. per WP:Prof#C1 with a high h index and 28 papers with 100+ citations he clearly had an impact on his field. --hroest 18:48, 25 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. There is certainly a consensus that this article ought to be deleted. What should happen from there (redirection, disambiguation, moving another page to this title, etc.), is a separate discussion, and while none of those options reached a clear consensus here, none of them require an AfD either, so they may be discussed separately. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nondualism[edit]

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

Outline article masquerading as a disambiguation page; should be deleted to make room for the actual article that covers the whole of the topic, Nonduality (spirituality). There is nothing in the outline that is not covered in the full article. Skyerise (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Assuming we will change the page title of "Nonduality (Spirituality)" to original title "Nondualism") - see varies talk topics starting with here. Also @Last1in@Jtbobwaysf - just wanted to add clarification that this page was not moved (meaning original page called "Nondualism" was not moved. This page was created new after original page title got changed). I am copying brief recent history of the original page here for reference from the talk page discussion:
Background Information for page title change from original Nondualism to "Nonduality (Spirituality)":
  1. Page title till July 22nd was Nondualism
  2. user Jtbobwaysf highlighted few issues in the lead section e.g. excess details, delves into details or introduces new concepts etc.
  3. During user Joshua Jonathan's discussion with user Jtbobwaysf, user Joshua Jonathan thought page title of "Nonduality (Spirituality)" makes sense based on content of the page and changed the page title to "Nonduality (Spirituality)". They also added a new Category:Nonduality and updated all pages to remove Category:Nondualism and add Category:Nonduality to correctly reflect the page title change of Nondualism to "Nonduality (Spirituality)".
  4. A new page called "Nondualism" got created on July 22nd during those talk page discussions.
  5. Discussions started on Talk page regarding what should be the correct title for the page - Nondualism or Nonduality (Spirituality)/Nonduality.
Asteramellus (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Asteramellus, I confirm your clear analysis and I thank you for your input. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge or Redirect. A page move can be discussed later.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Nonduality (spirituality). Common term for the related subjects. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 19:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea is that removing the current disaster will allow Nonduality (spirituality) to be moved to Nondualism. Skyerise (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From the viewpoint of an AfD, I think we have to consider just this article. I think (policy is a bit vague) that the right way is to Merge this article into Nonduality (spirituality), then rename that article to either Nonduality or Nondualism based on a discussion (and probably RfC) on that page. The end result is the same. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTBURO: We are discussing this now, and this is deletion-worthy material. We don't need yet another full discussion process. —Alalch E. 00:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTBURO is about ignoring bad rules. So, let me rephrase without reference to the rules at all: I agree that this is worthy of deletion (with a redir). The considerate way to delete an article is to build consensus here, at AfD, where people interested in deletions gather. I think the considerate way to rename a different article is to build a consensus on that article's Talk. That way, the people who actively contribute to that article can opine. Slipping the rename into a deletion discussion that some of those editors probably don't know exists is simply a bad plan, and I feel that it is inconsiderate whether policy recommends it or not. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I didn't mean, nor did the other editor, I'm pretty sure, that we would try to develop actual consensus here for a move of that other article to this name. The thing is that we are not obligated to favor redirection as an alternative to deletion just because it's a reasonable redirect when there are other considerations. For example, it's often fine to boldly move pages too. If Skyrise prefers this name to "Nonduality (spirituality)", it's totally fine to ask editors not to !vote for redirection (just for the sake of reasonableness) so that she can perform the move herself--in light of general agreement that the content here is good to be deleted. —Alalch E. 01:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.—Alalch E. 00:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. Either way the requested move is waiting for this discussion to close. Neither result would prevent a page move (see WP:ROUNDROBIN for how a redirect with history can be swapped), whereas a relist would delay it further. SilverLocust 💬 08:10, 25 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. The "keep" arguments have provided no evidence in support of their position. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa Borisjuk[edit]

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

Failure of WP:GNG. No significant coverage online. This exists but mostly primary source with interview, and not nearly enough to warrant article. Non-notable soccer player. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Barely anything to support the notability of the subject, given the sources provided. GuardianH (talk) 13:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has multiple sources to demonstrate notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have expanded the article based on the existing sources and a few others found. Significa liberdade (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dwanyewest: I know what the general notability guideline is, thanks. Just saying that the subject passes is not an argument, you need to mention some of the sources. As for me, I cannot mention sources when there is a lack thereof, and I mentioned the only source I could find at the time of the AFD submission. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, at worst. AfD initiated two days after creation and while the article was being improved. Due to their career's timeframe, online search results might not be indicative of the subject's notability or lack thereof. Let the editors already working on the article deal with passing AfC instead of failing AfD. -Socccc (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Player meets WP Football Player Notability, which states "Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure". This player played in Women's United Soccer Association the first fully professional league for women. I agree more sourcing, specifically secondary sourcing, would enhance this article, but the player meets WP Football player notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demt1298 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Demt1298: You do know that WP:NFOOTY was abolished, right? Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paul Vaurie At the time I did not. A couple of other editors informed me of the discussion and pointed me to more up to date information about this. Thanks for asking. Demt1298 (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Demt1298: Thanks for clarifying. However, I would suggest slashing out your keep vote. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This subject does not meet any notability guidelines. WP Football Player Notability is an essay, and is not a substitute for the subject lacking third party sources. As others have noted, the keep votes have not provided any sources to show notability. User:Let'srun 00:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I've added some information on the talk page for the article because I get lost trying to make sense of athletics. Still, she is also the founder of a fitness campaign that seems to have some following around the U.S. called "Sweat Like a Mother" or "Strong Stroller Moms" (they're both used). It's there if anyone can use it to improve the article and meet notability requirements. OIM20 (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. GNG is not met with the sources found. Meeting a project essay criterion is irrelevant.
JoelleJay (talk) 03:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - keep arguments have not provided or shown any single source that provides significant coverage under WP:GNG - and the argument for NFOOTY is invalid, because that was deprecated a while back. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:18, 24 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! 19:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael S. Bogren[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG as a failed judicial nominee, with only some passing and routine coverage leading to the subject falling to WP:BLP1E. No objections here for a redirect to Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies, where he is already listed. Let'srun (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Michigan. Let'srun (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Delete I agree that this does not meet GNG guidelines and this entry would certainly not stand the test of time. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 21:27, 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Horvath[edit]

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

Failure of WP:GNG. Significant coverage cannot be found online. This exists, but it is practically a primary source with interview from parents, and gives no in-depth coverage to Megan Horvath. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Expanded article from sources I could find. Significa liberdade (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 13:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Significa liberdade. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Das osmnezz: Significa liberdade did not say "keep", so you can't say keep per them - they just said they expanded the article, and made no argument for or against deletion. I have looked through the added sources, and this is not sigcov and is paywalled, passing mention, stats page, some coverage but a lot of is primary due to interviewing her parents, passing mention, passing mention, passing mention, passing mention, passing mention. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, at worst. AfD initiated two days after creation and while the article was being improved. Due to their career's timeframe, online search results might not be indicative of the subject's notability or lack thereof. Let the editors already working on the article deal with passing AfC instead of failing AfD. -Socccc (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreed that sourcing is not enough. NYT, Houston Chronicle, SFGate2, SFGate3, SFGate4, LA Times, and SFGate5 are all passing mentions, SFGate 1 has some content but not SIGCOV. Nowhere close to GNG.
JoelleJay (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Player meets WP Football Player Notability, which states "Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure". This player played in Women's United Soccer Association the first fully professional league for women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demt1298 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean the WP:NFOOTY guideline which no longer exists, because it was superceded by the requirement to pass WP:GNG? Joseph2302 (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Media coverage is only quick references and not significant coverage of her. I vote to delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as of now, no coherent has been put forth for keeping the article. No GNG-providing sources found and NFOOTY has been deprecated and is thus not a valid argument. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:36, 27 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! 19:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arber Haliti[edit]

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

Despite searches in Google, DDG and ProQuest, I was not able to locate any coverage outside of database sources. Appears to fail #5 of WP:SPORTBASIC, which is the minimum requirement for an article here. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:28, 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! 19:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole de Jesús[edit]

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

The subject has made at least four appearances for the Dominican Republic women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. The only piece of coverage I found which covers her directly (1), comes from the school she attends. JTtheOG (talk) 18:47, 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 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! 19:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parcel audit[edit]

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

non-notable topic created via a single-purpose account ~TPW 18:42, 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! 19:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brieana Hallo[edit]

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

The subject has made at least four appearances for the Dominican Republic women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:41, 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 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! 16:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Budde[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a writer, not making any strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. His strongest notability claim (actually missed entirely by the article as written) is that he was once a nominee for (but not a winner of) a regional (not national) literary award, which would be fine if the article were well referenced but is in no way "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have any referencing -- but even on a WP:BEFORE search I'm really only finding primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence rather than substantive WP:GNG-building coverage about him or his writing. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 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! 16:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opolans[edit]

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

No references, non-notable, long gone tribe, fails WP:GNG Crainsaw (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Poland. Crainsaw (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added references from the corresponding articles in the Polish and German Wikipedias. "Long gone" is never a valid reason for deletion. Once notable, always notable. And even before these references were added, the article included the statement that the tribe was mentioned by the Bavarian Geographer. WP:BEFORE is really important. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eastmain. Mccapra (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Was a WP:BEFORE search even attempted? I was able to easily find multiple books seemingly providing WP:SIGCOV ([22][23]); [24] also provides good supplementary coverage. That is also me only looking through English language sources; Silesian historiography is primarily written in German and Polish, so academic literature is far more likely to exist in those languages. Curbon7 (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Found additional coverage in a German book: [25]. Curbon7 (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously notable as mentioned by the Bavarian Geographer. Volunteer Marek 13:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early Keep per WP:SNOW. Good faith nominator may have missed WP:BEFORE B2 and D4, as both gBooks and gScholar search results have clear, non-trivial references. Anyone here read both German and Polish? Odds are this could be a very strong article with a little Liebe and Miłość. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:46, 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 Speedy keep: Member of a state legislature.‎

Pat Gillis[edit]

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

He is only known for one thing, as failed and removed politician, and disappeared afterwards. Existing sources are not significant and I was not able to find any indepth articles on him. Upper Deck Guy (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was a member of the Oregon House of Representatives. From what I understand, serving as a state legislator automatically makes one meet notability guidelines.Thriley (talk) 16:12, 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 speedy delete‎. CSD G7 Liz Read! Talk! 01:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Anabueze[edit]

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

Non-notable person. No sources found to establish notability WP:NBIO or WP:GNG — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 15:33, 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 14:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duran Çetin[edit]

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

Cross-wiki spam. Kadı Message 15:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Literature, and Turkey. Kadı Message 15:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Professional profile, WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Even if sources are found, requires TNT. —siroχo 06:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. fyi, Turkish Wikipedia has deleted this article once already, and is discussing it again: [26]. -- asilvering (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Cross-wiki spam left over from 2011. No sources or anything to pass the GNG or NAUTHOR. Styyx (talk) 09:54, 24 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 Alexis Stewart. Liz Read! Talk! 16:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever with Alexis and Jennifer[edit]

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

Plenty of passing coverage regarding this show, but a lack of WP:SIGCOV leads to it not meeting the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Radio, Television, and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with that assessment. There are passing mentions that prove it existed, but nothing that actually discusses the show in any depth. Delete. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Alexis Stewart, where the show, its cancellation, and its television successor are described in a Wikipedia-appropriate amount of detail; the show's other host does not have a Wikipedia bio. I agree with the assessment that the show itself fails WP:SIGCOV, and the article has no sources at all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Jennifer Hutt does have a wikipedia article, for what it is worth. Let'srun (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, just not linked from anything I looked at. Not sure then, could redirect to either one. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to either of the host's biographies. The show lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:42, 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 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 14:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obeid Rashid Nizam[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Bangladesh Cricket Board is not a legislative body, so WP:NPOL does not apply here. I was not able to find any sources that establish notability WP:NBIO or WP:GNG — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 15:14, 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 14:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Shayan F Rahman[edit]

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

Non-notable person. I was not able to find any sources that establish notability WP:NBIO or WP:GNG — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 15:09, 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. I'm not against giving this another gonif better sourcing comes up but the possibility of a technical SNG pass when the evidence is that the GNG is failed for what is a BLP. On that basis there is only one policy compliant outcome. Spartaz Humbug! 18:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stefano Rabolli Pansera[edit]

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

We've had ten years to improve this article and there has been no demonstration of notability. Some of it is BLP unsourced as of writing. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think this subject meets WP:ARTIST.4b as a creator and/or curator of multiple art exhibits that have received critical attention, including from academic journals.
    1. SIGCOV in this Springer journal article [27] about contributions to a gallery
    2. Some SIGCOV in Nature [28] about an exhibit the subject led.
    3. Some SIGCOV in Frieze [29] about curating an exhibit
    4. A mention in NYT crediting curating an art show, [30]
    5. Mention in Vogue Italia [31]
    6. SIGCOV in Whitewall Magazine [32] from someone who seems to be a staff writer
—siroχo 06:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everything except for source one fulfills SIGCOV, but it doesn't demonstrate to me that Pansera fulfills WP:CREATIVE point 1, "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". Could you demonstrate to me better proof how he fulfills WP:CREATIVE, either point 1 or any other point? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm considering those references as evidence of CREATIVE point 4b or maybe 4c, rather than 1. —siroχo 19:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect I'm personally not convinced that such coverage is significant enough – it does seem like the criteria (especially with how it is phrased) is more in tune for artists themselves instead of people who are mostly curators. Could you maybe consider showing me how he meets such criteria if I'm missing something, or if he would otherwise fulfill our GNG? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm focused on the SNG here. I probably should have left out the word "SIGCOV", because as long as we verify the SNG we don't need SIGCOV about the subject or GNG. I believe the sources provided do demonstrate 4b and/or 4c, especially the Nature and Place Branding and Public Diplomacy sources, which describe in-detph the creativity and importance of the exhibits themselves, and name them as created by / "brainchild" of the subject. —siroχo —siroχo 20:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article is now down to one notable event - co curating the Angola pavilion. Still no source for claim of date of birth and education. According to ArtNet PR, Pansera is now dealing in NFTs and "video art" with no real explanation of affiliation.[4] The "Beyond Entropy" project seems have ceased to exist. I think the subject should be viewed as an entrepreneur rather than an artist or art administrator. I think the article for Paula Nascimento is deletable, rather than a reason to keep this non notable one. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Electronic_music/Sources
  2. ^ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Nigeria/Nigerian_sources
  4. ^ Batycka, Dorian (12 September 2022). "A Former Director of Hauser & Wirth Has Big Dreams for Video Art. That's Why He Founded a Tiny Film Festival in Collector-Rich St. Moritz". Artnet News. Retrieved 10 August 2023.
  • The source "Nature" is a Transformative Journal; authors can publish using the traditional publishing route OR via immediate gold Open Access. In other words a press release for an exhibition at the Architectural Association School of Architecture in 2011. Not an RS. Significant coverage should be a true discussion of the work and the artist or curator, not just press releases or native advertising. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the leading scientific journals have the option to submit articles for publication. For example: The Lancet, BMJ, Nature (journal)-all of them are notable. The article in The Nature is written by a staff writer not the subject himself. Also, the fact that Mr. Pansera is devoting his time to NFT, does not cancel his previous notable achievement. Hermann Heilner Giebenrath (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry. I didn't emphasize the part of the sentence that I was referring to: OR via immediate gold Open Access. I have done that now. I read that to mean that anyone can have an article accepted without review of any sort if they have gold Open Access - Pay to play. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 14:29, 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 14:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment After removing all the uncited information, the article is one sentence long. I do not see a way to expand the article. Others who have listed "coverage" in the discussion might want to make a run at it to see if they can improve. I can not find any information about the subject from those passing mentions, some of which are press releases or interviews. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:41, 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. Star Mississippi 01:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Farris (baseball)[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:18, 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 Postpartum psychosis. Liz Read! Talk! 07:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Clancy[edit]

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

Person notable for WP:ONEEVENT who has not received much WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE since the event occured. Fails WP:CRIMINAL. Hirolovesswords (talk) 10:00, 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 Draftify‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karyn Hall[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No available significant, independent coverage to be found online. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, at worst. AfD initiated one day after creation. Due to their career's timeframe, online search results might not be indicative of the subject's notability or lack thereof; for example, paywalled Philadelphia Inquirer archives not indexed by Google return 10 hits, with unknown degrees of SIGCOV due to lack of access. D1 UF soccer program's all-time record holder in appearances, consecutive starts, and minutes played as of 2022 suggest potential sources. Search results for notability further complicated by mid-career 2004 marriage and name change, with sources covering 2004–05 USL W-League seasons variously using Karyn Eusey, Karyn Hall-Eusey, and Karyn Hall Eusey. -Socccc (talk) 15:41, 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! 07:23, 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 Draftify‎. It can be improved, and probably should not have been nominated so soon, however nor should it have yet been in mainspace. Star Mississippi 00:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke O'Hanley[edit]

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

Failure of WP:GNG. This source cited on article is a primary source, and the other two do not offer significant coverage. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:58, 11 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! 07:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agreed with Paul Vaurie, the sourcing is nowhere close to passing NSPORT. Soccer USA and Sun Journal are passing mentions; the Palo Alto Online source is better, but still contains a lot of primary/non-independent content; the stats page is stats; Portland Pilots is not independent; and the Campanile piece is a local interview from when she was in high school and so fails YOUNGATH. That's not enough to justify an article.
JoelleJay (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: Unable to find any sources which would lead to the subject passing GNG. This article may be able to be improved though with some time in draft space. User:Let'srun 00:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the "keep" arguments have not actually proved that the article has sources that help pass GNG— merely stating that it does is not "proof". Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:23, 24 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! 07:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow (Shane Eagle album)[edit]

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

Does reaching 1 millions streams pass notability? This album has not received any certification of any kind and has not received any award, further more it did not make the news. The article cites 2 sources which are iTunes (primary source) and that it hit 1 million streams which any local upcoming artist can accomplish. shelovesneo (talk) 06:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Itunes is a primary source, as OP said, and the MTV News is broken and just redirects to MTV's main page. The link has been archived three times here, but all three snapshots were apparently taken after the article was removed, leaving the Wikipedia article with no good sources whatsoever. Cortador (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the creator's talk page, it looks like they tried producing this with fails due to lack of notability.shelovesneo (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That raises the question why this ever became an article in the first place. Cortador (talk) 15:23, 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! 07:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cyriac Abby Philips[edit]

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

As per notability I don't think it's notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Most of the sources cited have only his tweets and the controversy surrounding it. A Google search mostly returns articles with only his tweets in it. Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage Jeraxmoira (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, and Kerala. Jeraxmoira (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is someone who got in-depth coverage from ThePrint, and whose alleged professional misconduct was covered by an article in The Hindu. Yes, it is true that some of the news articles cited as sources are about claims that the subject made in his tweets, but The Hindustan Times and Mint (newspaper) are good sources who wrote about his tweets because either (a) he is significant or (b) what he is saying seemed to be significant. It is also interesting that his paper in the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hepatology was withdrawn because "the scientific methodology, analysis and interpretation of data underlying the article were insufficient for the conclusions drawn, and, with its removal, the article can no longer be relied upon." Being the subject of an article in Wikipedia is not meant to be a mark of approval or praise.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 20:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Cyriac Abby Philips, popularly known as "The Liver Doc" (Twitter: @theliverdr) is a clinician scientist, senior consultant and certified liver disease specialist based at The Liver Institute, Rajagiri Hospital, Kochi, Kerala. His core clinical work and research focus is on severe alcoholic liver disease and drug induced liver injury in the context of Indian traditional systems of medicine.
His pioneering work has been the introduction of stool transplant for salvaging patients dying from severe alcohol-related hepatitis and also disruptive peer-reviewed publications that showcases the adverse impact of traditional Indian healthcare practices such as Ayurveda, Siddha and also Homeopathy on public health. Dr. Abby currently is the most published research on Indian systems of medicine related liver injury (called Ayush-liver injury) in the world and has been invited to faculty position on the Guidelines Committee of the Asia-Pacific Association for Study of the Liver (APASL) - Drug Induced Liver Injury consortium.
He uses social media to promote evidence based medicine, empathetic care and improve scientific temper on informed healthcare decisions by using his own disruptive peer reviewed medical publications. He is also the winner of the President of India Gold in Hepatology, awarded by the Late (Hon) President of India, Shri Pranab Mukherjee at the Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, New Delhi in 2016. Dr Abby is a three-time American Association for the Study of Liver (AASLD) clinical research plenary and four-time AASLD Young Investigator Award winner, the only Young investigator Hepatologist to do so from India and Asian continent. The Indian Society of Gastroenterology awarded the National Award (Om-Prakash Memorial Rising Star) to Dr Abby in 2022.
Dr Abby is a prolific researcher with over 170 peer-reviewed publications in major Gastroenterology and Hepatology journals with over 2300 citations. Dr Abby has been extensively featured by almost all major Indian Media and prominent International Media on his professional, personal and academic work including Germany’s news media behemoth Der Spiegel and Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post, and The Insider. The Week Magazine featured him as the top “Influencer Doctor” from India in their special feature, and The Hindu featured him on their Special issue on “People Waging War on Medical Science Misinformation.” 49.37.226.196 (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly mention the sources for the claims you have made. It will be useful for other editors to make a decision on this. I still think he is a mere internet personality than a notable one. Jeraxmoira (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you read what he/she wrote, you will see that he/she did. Some of the sources he/she mentioned are already cited in the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it and that's why I asked for the source(s). Whatever he/she has written apart from what already exists on the article looks like original research to me. I did look for "Der Spiegel and Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post, and The Insider, but only found the insider which is a trivial mention once again. And an IP editor with no other contributions comes and drops 3 paragraphs with 0 refs? Jeraxmoira (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article from Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post in the references in the article. Maybe that is the one the IP editor is talking about. Though it is possible that the South China Morning Post has done more than one article about Cyriac Abby Philips.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I may be wrong here but the South China Morning Post's article revolves around a controversial tweet by him. He has significant coverage just from controversial tweets as a whole. Also, I just checked Wikipedia:Notability (doctors) and feel he may pass one of the criteria listed on it. Jeraxmoira (talk) 13:45, 12 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, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – might be the Heymann Standard in action again based on what I have seen so far. The sourcing is very extensive from locally mostly-reputable sources, clearly demonstrating fulfillment of the GNG to me. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please can someone do a source analysis
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:51, 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 keep‎. which is due in part to the nominator's withdrawal of the nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 07:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incest in literature[edit]

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

Slightly better referenced then Incest in film and television, this is still failure of MOS:TRIVIA, WP:NLIST, WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, in the form of 'random films and television featuring topic foo'. WP:NOTTVTROPES. If someone tries to rewrite Incest in popular culture (which I feel needs a WP:TNT but theoretically could be a notable topic), I doubt anything from this list of trivia would be useful there anyway. Related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incest in film and television Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, Popular culture, Sexuality and gender, and Lists. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The subject is absolutely notable, without the faintest doubt. There are scholarly books on the subject[42][43], the subject is of interest to very reliable newspapers (The Guardian)[44] which makes the point that this goes back to Sophocles and Oedipus Rex. I can see that the current article is basically an extended list and needs drastic sorting-out, but I don't think the existing information is of zero use to anyone who wants to make improvements, so I cannot recommend a TNT delete. This is one of those situations where the encyclopaedia would benefit from more improvement and less deletion. Finding good sources on this is ridiculously easy. Elemimele (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Best case scenario, the utterly ridiculous example farm that is spread across three different articles should be removed, and a singular article on the topic of "Cultural depictions of incest", or something like that, should be generated instead, using the sources like the ones Elemimele presented. The current state of the articles are such a mess, though, that there's not a super simple way to do this. As both the nom mentioned, and backed up by Elemimele's comment, this one is in marginally better shape than the other two, so I suppose my suggestion would be to Redirect the other two articles here, and use this one as the base of a rewrite. Rorshacma (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE as a pure example farm without context. Notable as the topic may be, it requires deletion as unsuitable for Wikipedia, i.e. WP:DEL-REASON #14. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. I support Rorshacma's scenario. The topic is notable as shown by Elemimele, and therefore does not fail WP:NLIST/WP:GNG. There are some references/referenced comments to preserve here. Daranios (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No criteria or scope. Purely list cruft. ScriptKKiddie (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree that this is pure listcruft. There is almost no prose in it whatsoever outside of bullet points. But the title in no way indicates that this is a list article, so it seems to me that the best way to handle it is to stubify it. We can leave a link to this historical version of the article on the talk page for anyone who thinks the lists would be helpful for future expansion. Any objection to handling it in this way? I'll happily write up a stub about the topic in general, but I don't want to do that unilaterally while the AfD is ongoing. -- asilvering (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it, that's the constructive way of applying WP:TNT. If you wait, this could be hard deleted (I prefer soft delete myself, some tidbits from history might be useful for someone). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ps. To be constructive, I volunteer to translate the referenced seciton on Japanese literature from Japanese Wikipedia. Initially I thought it might be out of scope for literature but it is only about novels and manga, not about anime or other media as I initially thought, so it should fit into the 'literature' article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've stubbed it. Unfortunately I don't have online access to that contemporary lit book Elemimele found, so I couldn't use it as the basis for a stub. There's much more that can be done, obviously, but I've got to take a break for now. Honestly, I don't think there's much useful at all in the previous version; I grabbed the only examples that I thought would be useful in an overview article. -- asilvering (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering That book seems accessible through Wikipedia Library: link (if it does not work, go to WL, OUP collection, and just seearch for the book title). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw. The article has been effectively WP:TNTed and rewritten, addressing all of my concerns. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:01, 25 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 Incest in literature. Liz Read! Talk! 07:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incest in popular culture[edit]

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

The usual case of "list of random media that features this concept". Very poorly referenced (just four footnotes, two of them for the same exhibition), failing WP:NLIST as a list and WP:GNG as a general article. Perhaps this could be rewritten from scratch (last AfD from 2014 suggested some sources), but if so, WP:TNT applies (perhaps this could be stubbed with sources found back then?). Also, from the very lead: "Incest is a popular topic in English erotic fiction" - even the (unreferenced) lead is not usable, as most 'in popular culture' topics obviously exist outside of the English world (newsflash: there is non-English popculture too). To prove this p oint, the ja wiki corresponding article seems to have some referenced prose content that might be used to create a section in 'incest in Japanese popular culture' or 'incest in Japanese art' or such, but I cannot access/verify the references. (But I am tagging this AfD under Japan topics too, maybe this will be of use to someone). So bottom line is - nothing here is rescuable, the lead is incorrect and what follows is TV Tropes level OR. PS. Related AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incest in literature. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incest in film and television. Even if this is rescued (which would involve a total rewrite), I doubt there is anything in those mostly unreferenced lists of works that would be useful here. Any examples discussed in the body need to be acompanied by analysis, since per cited policies, Wikipedia articles should not be just lists of examples (and certainly we don't need three poorly referenced lists about the same topic). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whichever article is left, it would still need to have a complete reworking and retitling - it would not be merging TV/Movie/Etc examples into an article about literature, it would be using the Literature article as a base for a prose article on "culture depictions of incest" without the TV Tropes style lists. I chose the "Literature" article as the base, simply because there has already been a demonstration of scholarly sources on that topic, something that has not been shown for the "TV/Movies" or "Pop Culture" versions, thus it would be the easiest to basically reduce down to a sourced stub, to serve as the base for later expansion. I am proposing Redirecting (NOT merging) of the other two articles to there simply to preserve the history, in case someone would want to sift through them to see if there is anything actually worthwhile buried in them. Any simple transferring of the listcruft should absolutely not be done. Rorshacma (talk) 04:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Whichever article is left, it would still need to have a complete reworking and retitling" - which is why my preference is for WP:TNT everything, then stubbing something at 'in popular culture' based on reliable academic sources found, plus translating the section from ja wiki I mention there, which seems analytical. Could work with SOFTDELETE (redirects) if anyone would be willing to stub something useful during the discussion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I think. I did not see this discussion at first. I don't have a strong opinion on where to start and where to redirect. Incest in literature does have some referenced and worthwhile content to use. ...in popular culture here on the other hand does have the broad topic designation. One could argue that the suggested ...in culture would be a better fit in the long run, and then it matters less from where one branches out. My personal experience is that these listings we have here, even if undesirable as Wikipedia articles, can still be helpful for future selective incorporation. That's why I think they should be preserved in the history, i.e. redirected, not deleted. Daranios (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested above. I've offered to write a brief stub for Incest in literature over on that one's AfD discussion. Redirecting this article to that one is a better alternative than merging or redirecting the other one to this one, imo. I personally have no desire whatsoever to write even a stub for "Incest in popular culture". -- asilvering (talk) 22:37, 22 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! 05:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Xavier Women's Basketball[edit]

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

Delete because it fails GNG and NSPORTS. Article is about a low-level (NAIA) women's basketball program and has had a notability concern tag since December 2015. Time to put this ol' girl out of her misery. SportsGuy789 (talk) 05:53, 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 delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collective responsibility in Russia and the Russian invasion of Ukraine[edit]

Collective responsibility in Russia and the Russian invasion of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like a textbook case of WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK. A large part of the article covers the tangential topic of German collective guilt, and another large part is based on a single Carnegie source that says nothing about collective guilt, but only about the Russian society's reaction to war. The rest is a bunch of sensation-mongering media op-eds discussing ad nauseam who's to blame for the war, and whether or not there's "collective guilt". As there's no concept of "collective guilt" in international law, the idea is purely abstract/philosophical, and hence the requirements for academic RS are particularly stringent (say, German collective guilt gained notability because figures like Jaspers, Adorno and Arendt wrote extensively on it - nothing like that appears here so far). --HPfan4 (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination seems to accept that this is a possible valid subject, but I’ll reinforce that by noting that we have articles on overlapping and closely related subjects: Collective responsibility, German collective guilt, Collective punishment, Good Russians, Great Russian chauvinism, Russian imperialism#Contemporary Russian imperialism, Ruscism, Russian world, Russian irredentism#Russo-Ukrainian War (2014–present), Krymnash, Accusations of genocide in Donbas, Ukrainian nationalism, Banderite#In Soviet and Russian propaganda, Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Internet Research Agency, Crucified boy, &c.
But the crux is WP:GNG, and the nomination claims there’re no sources on the subject. The article does already reference at least one.[45] In a quick search I found some more sources on the subject or on major aspects of it in web search,[46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53], in scholarly articles,[54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61] and in books.[62][63][64][65] So I believe there is sufficient coverage.  —Michael Z. 20:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you did not bother to read all of those sources. Mellk (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How many of them support keeping the article, in your opinion?  —Michael Z. 14:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, a textbook example of COATRACK Ymblanter (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see COATRACK here as much as POV, NOR, NOTESSAY and SYNTH. The POV is especially strong, to the point that there isn't anything to salvage (even if there were a good target for a Merge or Redir, which there is not). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 03:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete commenting current version[66] COATRACK exists (3 out of 4 paragraphs in section History), but is not the biggest issue here. As I see it, the article suffers from the same disease most articles dealing with current events: Synth. For example. Look at section "Volodymyr Zelenskyy", the first two big paragraphs. Two references, non of them discusses the "collective responsibility of russians". The Editor(s) of the WP article, changed the context of the newspaper articles, but cited them to "verify" the points made in the WP article. I consider this as OR and Synth. So, my verdict is: Delete. Cinadon36 23:41, 24 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 02:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Veloren[edit]

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

Ineligible for WP:G5 WP:G4 and WP:PROD. Ultimately, I don't think any adequate sourcing has cropped up since the result of the last AfD, and so do not believe there is sufficient notability.

I've provided an assessment of most of the sources in the article below. I've omitted sources that are unambiguously not GNG compliant (subject website is used more than once, for example). A general Google search doesn't present anything useful, and a news search only gives me 3 results for https://www.gamingonlinux.com which - as best I can tell - is user generated and WP:VG/RS states it's unreliable (granted the linked discussion is pretty bare).

It's got 1 GNG compliant source, best I can tell, and it doesn't have nearly enough pull.

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Sirdog
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://veloren.net/ No Subject website ~ Yes ✘ No
https://larepublica.pe/videojuegos/2022/02/12/los-mejores-videojuegos-gratuitos-que-puedes-descargar-en-tu-computadora Yes Yes No Trivially mentioned in a list of free games ✘ No
https://www.gamestar.de/artikel/minecraft-die-besten-alternativen-2022,3378793.html Yes Yes No Trivially mentioned in a list of free games ✘ No
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/veloren No User generated No Database entry with no commentary or anaylsis ✘ No
https://snapcraft.io/veloren Yes No Store page entry to download subject ✘ No
https://gitlab.com/veloren/veloren/-/releases/v0.14.0 No Subject source code repository No User generated Yes ✘ No
https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2020/06/interviewed-veloren-an-upcoming-foss-multiplayer-voxel-rpg/ No Interview with developer of subject No Listed as unreliable at WP:VG/RS + user-generated Yes ✘ No
https://blog.desdelinux.net/veloren-videojuego-codigo-abierto-inspirado-cube-world/ Yes Yes Despite having "blog" in the title, their editorial ethics as listed at [67] appear to be sound. Cannot find on-wiki discussion, and a cursory Google search doesn't show anything concerning. Yes ✔ Yes
https://jugandoenlinux.com/index.php/homepage/exploracion/1315-veloren-estrena-su-version-0-10 Yes No Appears to be a hobbyist website with no attempts or reputation for fact checking ~ ✘ No
https://www.mmosquare.com/games/reviews/veloren Yes No Database of games website, no idea who adds content - nor is it listed - and the review reeks promotional without any intent for any kind of neutral commentary Yes ✘ No
https://www.kdeblog.com/veloren-un-juego-rpg-combinacion-de-zelda-y-minecraft.html Yes No All content (or atleast an overwhelming majority) appears to be written by a single individual, no listed policies regarding fact checking or reliability, calls itself a blog... best assessment is that it's user generated. Yes ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
—Sirdog (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the issue but why is it G4 if I had made sufficient changes at the beginning? I created the page this time and everything was manually written with help from a few sources. What do you suggest, can be done, in this case? Also, are any of these links reliable enough for inclusion?
https://www.f2pg.com/veloren/
https://flathub.org/apps/net.veloren.veloren
https://libregamewiki.org/Veloren
https://alternativeto.net/software/veloren/about/
https://gameforge.com/en-US/gmag/veloren/
https://www.classcentral.com/course/youtube-veloren-open-source-self-hosted-endless-world-adventure-game-like-roblox-and-minecraft-192926
https://lutris.net/games/veloren/
https://snapcraft.io/veloren
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30667022
Please note that I'm relatively very new to Wikipedia editing therefore I need your help in understanding certain things so as to smoothly navigate my editing journey. If you suggest what else should/must be done, it would be very helpful.
Thanks PRIYANSHU 02:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priyanshu1rai (talk • contribs)
Hello, Priyanshu1rai! You may have misread me above, but I was stating this is not a G4. I'm happy to answer any questions you have about editing, notability, etc. Feel free to reach out on my talk page or at the Teahouse. Doing so here would be inappropriate.
My analysis of the sources you provided above is as follows for the purposes of this discussion:
https://www.f2pg.com/veloren/ - ☒N Is a simple overview of the game on a website dedicated to listing free games. For sources to prove notability, they need to provide significant coverage and commentary.
https://flathub.org/apps/net.veloren.veloren - ☒N Appears to be a platform to download the game.
https://libregamewiki.org/Veloren - ☒N A wiki is comprised of user generated content and is ineligible to show notability, as it isn't reliable.
https://alternativeto.net/software/veloren/about/ - ☒N Same general issue as www.f2pg.com.
https://gameforge.com/en-US/gmag/veloren/ - ☒N Same general issue as www.f2pg.com.
https://www.classcentral.com/course/youtube-veloren-open-source-self-hosted-endless-world-adventure-game-like-roblox-and-minecraft-192926 - ☒N A free online course on how to run the game by a YouTuber is not reliable
https://lutris.net/games/veloren/ - ☒N Same general issue as www.f2pg.com..
https://snapcraft.io/veloren - ☒N I evaluated the source in the table above.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30667022 - ☒N Appears to be a user generated forum. —Sirdog (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on both source tables above. Nothing for notability, despite being ref-bombed. Oaktree b (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veloren and WP:TOOSOON. There are a head-spinning amount of sources thrown around, but nothing reliable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article has ample sources that do not generally demonstrate a reliable and independent origin, being drawn largely from blogs, download sites and primary sources. This can be frustrating when a lot of work has been put in to compile sources from across the Internet on a topic, but the coverage falls short of the standard needed to establish that the subject matter is notable. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Vrxces. SWinxy (talk) 21:01, 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 merge‎ to Siege of Mariupol. Liz Read! Talk! 02:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blockade of Azovstal[edit]

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

This is basically just the same article as Battle of Azovstal, which was merged into Siege of Mariupol by editor consensus a year ago. This has even less material in it, and isn’t any more notable than it was a year ago. It makes more sense to cover it in the larger article. HappyWith (talk) 02:18, 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! 01:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Captive white tigers[edit]

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

This article has serious long-standing source issues, and seems to me to be a massive violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Not sure why these are more notable then white tigers in general. Sourcing is fine, but this is an extended list with no indication as to why having a tiger in captivity is notable ("financial reasons" given is rather vague). Oaktree b (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too much detail, and no clear reason why the topic is notable. The vast majority of white tigers are captive, and this fact can be noted in the main article. AryKun (talk) 02:26, 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 redirect‎ to Duke of Leinster. The keep arguments are based on assertion and opinion rather than providing the necessary high quality sources that are required for a BLP. It is not at all uncommon for individual peers not to have an article and arguments about inherent notability simply fall on their being no policy basis for this in policy. All the sourced stuff relates to the title so the redirect is the correct policy based outcome. Spartaz Humbug! 18:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice FitzGerald, 9th Duke of Leinster[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Maurice FitzGerald, 9th Duke of Leinster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

1)The subject doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability requirements of significant, independent coverage. An internet search doesn't reveal much coverage of the person.

2) Most of the references used in this article refer to other people (e.g car crash obituary) not the actual man, Maurice Fittzgerald.

3) The person has made no notable contribution to any field. It is said he is a landscape designer, but no mention is made of awards or achievements he made in that field.

4) The article reads like a personal family history (children, who married who etc), not something that is notable or important for public knowledge

Alternatively to deletion, this page could be merged to the Duke of Leinster page, where the main coverage (a so-called title dispute) is already listed and mentions this man's name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Leinster#Title_dispute Wikiejd2 (talk) 10:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not so - see below. Ingratis (talk) 09:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Necrothesp. --Editor FIN (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I can't see what is notable about him beside that he inherited some renowned title. Which does not gives him anything beside the right of participating in some obscure elections and precedence in some kind of social gatherings. If he does something notable like winning such an election, a distinct article would be reasonable. The notable parts of the article are already in the article on the title. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Theoreticalmawi, thoughts on a redirect? Pilaz (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Duke of Leinster per WP:ATD. This nobleman fails WP:GNG, doesn't qualify for WP:NPOL due to not being in the House of Lords, and ultimately Wikipedia articles can't just be genealogical entries. Both keep !votes fail to address the core rationale of the nominator, which is that the sources do not provide significant coverage of the subject of the article. My source assessment table:
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Pilaz
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1511572/A-Californian-claimant-an-escape-from-the-trenches-and-the-fight-for-a-dukedom.html Yes No Two sentences about the subject. Not WP:SIGCOV. ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20120731141943/https://debretts.com/people/biographies/search/results/928/Maurice%20FitzGerald%20LEINSTER.aspx No Some or all data (like the "hobbies" section) likely submitted by the subject. No WP:TERTIARY source - Debrett's Peerage is a reference work, and tertiary sources are not considered towards meeting the GNG. The information presented here is also not SIGCOV. ✘ No
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/thomas-earl-of-offaly-killed-in-car-accident-1.73895 No Just namechecked. Not SIGCOV. ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20120222234119/http://www.lanwades.com/l_information/ No No WP:SPS No ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20151222141342/https://announcements.telegraph.co.uk/deaths/193369/fitzgerald No The Telegraph announcements are submitted by the readers. No No No mention of the duke. ✘ No
https://books.google.it/books?id=3aU-AQAAIAAJ&q=%22Edward%22+1988+%22Lord+John+FitzGerald%22&redir_esc=y No No WP:TERTIARY source - Debrett's Peerage is a reference work, and tertiary sources are not considered towards meeting the GNG. The information presented here is also not SIGCOV. ✘ No
The Telegraph article titled "Battle over Irish dukedom settled" (not archived anywhere). Some likely version of this article survives in this forum: https://www.leinsterfans.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5996 Yes No Barely namechecked. Almost all of the article is about the other claimant to the title or the common ancestors. ✘ No
https://www.scotsman.com/news/dna-test-the-latest-twist-in-aristocratic-tale-of-a-cowboy-a-gambler-and-a-web-of-deceit-1697629 No Namechecked twice. ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20111006090053/http://www.leinsterleader.ie/news/local/moving_maynooth_visit_by_fitzgerald_1_1937176 No This article talks about the brother of the duke. The duke only gets a passing mention. ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20170922005021/http://hermionefitzgerald.com/ No Website of the duke's daughter. No No No mention of the duke. ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20170922005021/http://hermionefitzgerald.com/ No No WP:UGS No ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Pilaz (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - on a point of accuracy, the article referred to above on the 13th Duke of Manchester was only deleted because of problems with the succession, in that it was very unclear whether the subject of the article was to be the next duke. Once this was resolved, the article was restored. So - despite the assertion to the contrary, no articles on dukes have previously been deleted (!vote to follow). Ingratis (talk) 07:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a misrepresentation of the close, as the article was clearly deleted on the grounds of not passing WP:N, with the closer stating "I'm sufficiently satisfied to agree that he isn't notable." The closer discounted the "having inherited/not inherited" arguments anyway, because they stated that inheriting the title or not was not sufficient to demonstrate notability ("even if he did there is a question about inheriting notability. The title no longer confers legislative responsibilities because of the Lords reforms; he's not a member of the House of Lords and plays no role in the UK legislative process, all but extinguishing any notability he may once have had pre Lords reform"). Pilaz (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Very little of the article is about him personally, as opposed to his title or family.2601:249:9301:D570:1877:1728:C421:31DB (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, after much consideration - the rules and the spirit are pretty much diametrically opposed here. (a) The Rulez, having first taken care to disqualify all the usual sources for peerages, are clear in one direction: inadequate sources, no SIGCOV, NOTGENEALOGY = no article; and I can't disagree that there is not much to be said about the biography of this man, who has clearly opted for a very private life. However, (b) The Spirit, as in the policy WP:IAR, is equally clear in the other direction, as summarised by Necrothesp above: this is not just any "ordinary" peer but a duke, one of the very few still around, and not only that but the premier peer in the peerage of Ireland (the nom's talk page has an interesting sidelight on that) - enough to justify an article, even if it is only a short one. Although I don't know to what extent readers are now taken account of, this is an article that would be expected to be found and its absence would be very puzzling. On the question of genealogy, genealogy and the peerage go together: there is such a thing as "notable genealogy", and that of dukes would count as such. If Wikipedia is going to include the peerage at all, it should do so properly, rather than picking holes all over the place, to create a sort of Swiss cheese effect, to the detriment, again, of readers rather than editors. Ingratis (talk) 09:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware that calls to IAR are invariably met with cascades of withering scorn poured from a great height, but tough - it's still a policy. Ingratis (talk) 09:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, there is a divide between those editors advocating Redirect and those arguing for a Keep. Could those wanting to Keep this article respond to the source analysis done that indicates the lack of sources establishing GNG?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the seniority of his title. Axisstroke (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with what Wikiejd2 (talk) said. This is about a person who has done nothing significant (nothing that's mentioned, anyway) but has a title. Athel cb (talk) 08:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - replying directly to Liz's question: the sources analysis tickbox summarises the rules, as far as that goes; but in this instance it doesn't go very far, or in the right direction. The premier peer in the Irish peerage cannot not be notable - except of course within the esoteric meaning of the word here in Wikiworld. But firstly, WP:NOTGENEALOGY is now customarily read very literally to exclude all genealogical information from notability except as a footnote to some other notability, whereas with peers especially the genealogy itself often IS the notability. Secondly, even if that genealogical barrier were overcome, the usual sources for current UK biographical / genealogical information have all already been disabled: any attempt to source from Burke's or Who's Who or Debrett's, or any online site, or even sources like "Times" obituaries, will be dismissed with contempt, having been previously "discussed by the community" on obscure noticeboards by small groups of editors with little or no knowledge or interest in the subject. So there's no real room to argue against the tickbox within the rules, whence IAR. As a general comment, because the British peerage is not a particularly popular subject, except among a subsection of UK editors, it's been possible to do this without attracting much attention, but it's part of the broader reductionist / regulatory trend that's been much more visible in WP:NSPORTS, especially WP:NOLYMPICS, and presently being fouught out at GEOROAD where the issues are more plainly expressed. The final outcome is always the same: to reduce a comprehensive coverage of a specialist subject to a few isolated highlights, probably as a bad case of WP:NIME. Ingratis (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The duke of leinster and the FitzGerald aristocrats feature heavily in Irish history. This article could be better written but it provided me with a useful resource this morning to understand where they have ended up today. Thanks, Ballystrahan (talk) 08:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ballystrahan, the history of the family may heavily be featured in Irish history, but this article is about the current duke, not the family (Duke of Leinster). The question at hand is whether a sufficient number of reliable sources provide significant coverage of the current duke (WP:GNG). Can you comment on the sources discussed in this deletion discussion, or provide new ones? Pilaz (talk) 10:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough!
He is featured (very briefly!) in the UK's Who is Who website:
https://www.ukwhoswho.com/display/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.001.0001/ww-9780199540884-e-23041?rskey=ty8mGe&result=1
The following book may be of use also, though it probably ends at his birth:
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/the-fitzgeralds-of-carton-house-a-deeply-dysfunctional-family-the-decline-and-fall-of-the-dukes-of-leinster-1.1837003
I'm afraid that is all currently I have to add to the topic. Best wishes, Ballystrahan (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who's Who UK is autobiographical and generally not reliable per a 2022 RfC (see WP:RSP), and yes, if the book ends in 1948, I don't think a toddler under 12 months of age gets SIGCOV. Pilaz (talk) 13:55, 27 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! 01:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Charles Award[edit]

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

Per request from @192.76.8.66:

This article came to my attention when I noticed a TFD nomination for it's associated navbox. Having looked at the article and done a WP:BEFORE search I am really struggling to see how this award is actually notable. The article as it stands contains a single source from The Sports Network, this is not independent coverage because the award was created and awarded by The Sports Network's CEO.
Doing a few further searches turns up a bunch of republished press releases from The Sports Network, e.g. [69], [70], [71] and some posts by the college the winner attended [72]. I can't see any evidence of third party coverage existing to satisfy WP:N. -Lemonaka‎ 01:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The URL in the article says FCS, and using that to search, I came up with https://www.espn.com/espn/wire?section=ncf&id=25667940 Graywalls (talk) 01:49, 11 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! 01:21, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Downs (animator)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of reliable sourcing online. Only substantial material that I could find on this animator was an obituary on a blog. Everything else only brief mentions about the work he did and little to nothing nothing about himself (thus also failing WP:BASIC). The Night Watch (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Walt Disney Animation Studios. A simple GBooks find does find coverage of his involvement in various Disney works and animated films, but they are not necessarily on the man himself. The interview in Walt’s People –: Talking Disney with the Artists who Knew Him, the first result, is simply an WP:INTERVIEW. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Comics and animation, and Idaho. Shellwood (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A search found zero sources that show notability, just a couple of brief mentions. Subject fails WP:GNG and does not meet WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, what searches did you do? A Google Books search did find the WP:INTERVIEW source I mentioned earlier as well as his contribution, and his contributions to animated projects were discussed for more than a few brief mentions. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 14:25, 18 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, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm not sure about a Merge to Walt Disney Animation Studios as that article doesn't contain any content about animators. Perhaps a Redirect would be more appropriate? Or a different target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Something like List of Disney animators? There are a fair amount of these animators that do not have sources mainly about them, but are heavily discussed for their contributions. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 14:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great, User:HumanxAnthro, if the article actually existed. We can't Merge or Redirec to a nonexistent page. Care to start this one? Liz Read! Talk! 01:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just making a suggestion. That's all. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 14:57, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_August_18&oldid=1172620998"