Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 04	August 06 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Black Kite (talk) 09:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aníbal Guerreiro[edit]

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

Non-notable local individual, perhaps as a memorial page. I can't find sourcing for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Portugal. Oaktree b (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- The main relevance originally was for this page: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Est%C3%A1dio_de_S%C3%A3o_Lu%C3%ADs"

- As I lookup for more information, I found out several articles with tributes to the person and his work. Although many, most of them refer to the same short information, it still felt relevant.

- The person in question contributed to the city on different levels, including social (Casa dos Rapazes), Entrepreneurship, and, the reason that the page was created, the connection with Estádio de São Luís and his influence in taking the club to the Primeira Liga

- Mention by the city website in relation to the death of the person (Portuguese): https://www.cm-faro.pt/pt/noticias/67569/municipio-lamenta-falecimento-do-sr-anibal-guerreiro.aspx

- Articles (google): https://www.google.com/search?q=An%C3%ADbal+da+Cruz+Guerreiro&client=ubuntu-sn&hs=8Al&channel=fs&ei=nmm8ZKzqFsSg8gLBzrLwDg&start=10&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwissfOUv6OAAxVEkFwKHUGnDO4Q8tMDegQIBxAG&biw=1440&bih=788&dpr=2

- Articles regarding his death (Portuguese): https://www.sulinformacao.pt/2023/06/municipio-lamenta-morte-de-anibal-guerreiro-um-farense-de-alma-e-coracao/, https://jornaldoalgarve.pt/na-morte-de-anibal-guerreiro-nabinho/, https://www.record.pt/futebol/futebol-nacional/liga-betclic/farense/detalhe/morreu-anibal-guerreiro-socio-n-1-do-farense, https://barlavento.sapo.pt/algarve/farense-e-municipio-de-faro-de-luto-pela-morte-de-anibal-sousa-guerreiro Understood Cobalt Blue Beaver (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment I presume "local individual" is not a reason for deletion, whatever the definition may be. No comment on the notability (I mean, this man's notability is way below the standards I wish for, but so are oh so many WP's biography articles...) - Nabla (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, without predjudice. Not seeing any additional secondary sources which can contribute to notability. I wish to leave open the possibility of me being proved wrong though. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:42, 13 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 Proteus. ^Complex/_Rational 22:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nympheus[edit]

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

The only source to mention this figure is the Clementine Recognitions, as part of its clearly anti-pagan "black catalogue" of Jupiter's "adulteries". This figure doesn't appear to be mentioned in any secondary source, even the most comprehensive encyclopedias such as Smith and Brill's New Pauly, so the article fails WP:GNG. There is also nothing here which isn't already at Proteus. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Proteus, per WP:ATD-R. —siro χ o 00:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Proteus. This fails Wikipedia:Notability. Here's a source assessment table:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:IAmHuitzilopochtli
https://www.theoi.com/Text/ClementRecognitions.html	The source is not affiliated with this mythical being.	A disclaimer at the beginning notes: "Some of the text, and especially the mythic names, are corrupt."	Just one passing mention is present.	✘ 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}}.

IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — Karnataka ^talk 07:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reason given.14:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)★Trekker (talk)

Why delete when a redirect would suffice? IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Reason given" establishes it is not notable, but that should not favor deletion over an WP:ATD such as redirection. IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Proteus, as a merge. He may not be independently notable, but classical/medieval literary figures connected with Proteus should generally be mentioned on his page, if there's room—and he's already mentioned there. So this should be a merge, not a delete. P Aculeius (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this isn't notable, verifiable, sure, but that's it Salted and then canned meat product (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC) (WP:SOCKSTRIKE)[reply]
Redirect to Proteus for the time being, as not notable on its own until more sources are found, but no reason to deny the interested reader easy access to the one sentence to say about him. That's a fun one, as there seem to be a number of uses of the name Nympheus, but only the "son of Zeus" one being present at Wikipedia (or Wiktionary for that matter): Nympheus also seems to be a spelling of Nimfeum, place of nymphs/[1], an ancient town/[2] or harbor/[3], painting by Monet, textile, two different rivers and a cave mentioned by antique authors, a bay (at one of the rivers?), a "Saracene general", and more. I wonder if there is any reasonable way to present these different meanings to the Wikipedia user. Daranios (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Proteus per above Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 14:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Proteus per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Upstairs, Downstairs episodes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Cry for Help (Upstairs, Downstairs)[edit]

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

non-notable episode, contents could be merged with the list page Karnataka (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Karnataka (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, out of interest Karnataka, why did you single out this episode for deletion when there is practically a dedicated article every episode of the series? The others that I checked at random all seem to be equally as lacking in notability or sourcing that maybe a discussion about the entirety of the episode articles would be warranted. For what it's worth, I don't see a reason why we need to have dedicated articles for the episodes, so I am probably broadly in agreement with you, and so I would wonder if an article per series instead, with a single sentence to cover each episode would be more justified. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bungle I completely agree with you - what I had done was bundle every single episode with the exception of the pilot into a single nomination, which turned out to be perceived as very silly to the point where it affected a request that I had made. So I instead closed that and nominated two episodes before getting busy, then nominated this one at a later date. I planned to nominate almost all other episodes separately after that, but I forgot. — Karnataka ^talk 17:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get more opinions. Please specify the target article for a possible Merge or Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn’t seem to be notable. McFilet O' Fish Fan (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Upstairs, Downstairs episodes as WP:ATD-M. It's common to put a short plot summary or synopsis in those, but in this case they were split out in other articles. —siro χ o 10:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - As suggested above. I think it would be difficult to argue that this episode generated enough coverage that would justify an independent article. Dunarc (talk) 20:36, 11 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 Bates College#Campus. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Campus of Bates College[edit]

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

Bates College is a small liberal arts school in Maine with less than 2,000 students. This particular article has become a repository of images, supplemented almost entirely of primary or exclusively local sources with a direct connection with the college. The information is best merged back into the article, which is already quite comprehensive, rather than being parsed into an article like this one that has become a dump for media, unsourced WP:NOR, and a WP:PROMOTION for campus features. GuardianH (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Maine. Shellwood (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the Bates College article is already tagged:
- "This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadings. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page."

My advice is to clean up this article of any WP:OR and WP:PROMOTION and leave as is.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While individual buildings on campus are clearly notable, I don't see this topic as a whole being independently discussed by secondary sources, meaning there are WP:SYNTH concerns. SportingFlyer T·C 18:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral defaulting to weak keep - I'm changing my vote on the assumption that there have to be sources which pass WP:GNG here. This article needs a lot of cleanup, but it's a typical split for a college or university, and we're only a couple secondary sources away from showing notability. SportingFlyer T·C 22:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ as a needed subpage of the oversized Bates College. If this page is deleted now, it's going to get recreated in the near future based on the {{very long}} template on the main Bates College page. As for problems with the article, "cleanup ≠ deletion". Bates is an elite school known for its campus, so it's not surprising the campus would have a subpage, as opposed to one of the 50 ugliest campuses.

(Actually, a case can be made that the worst of those 50 campuses are probably more notable for all the wrong reasons, but I digress.)

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @A. B. I don't think any of the issues you raised would justify a whole Wikipedia article for a college with just 2,000 students, elite or not. When I added the {{very long}} tag back in April, there was significant bloat, but now the article is a pretty average length for a college/university; I've since removed the tag. We should be aiming for condensing information rather than preserving a page that has become a repository of images and excessive information for the school. Like @SportingFlyer mentioned, this article also doesn't have the notability either; 2,000 students is minuscule, and the college certainly doesn't need a whole other article unlike a school like Texas A&M University.

We should aim for something like the article for Pomona College, a liberal arts school which has all its necessary info in one article. GuardianH (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, @GuardianH. You've clearly given this thought and I trust your judgement.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with it is that the vast, vast majority of sources here are primary. The ones that aren't are on specific buildings. I looked to see how Notre Dame University did their campus page - first North American university that I thought of that would have a well tended Wikipedia garden - and it actually has a similar problem: mostly primary coverage, all about specific buildings and not the campus as a whole. (That also has a lot of sources so perhaps I scrolled past the good ones, but "Top 50 campuses in America" is clearly not one of them.) I'm not entirely sure what's the right answer here... it seems like these may technically fail WP:GNG but it's not necessarily content that needs to be deleted, if that makes sense. But I'm not quite at an IAR keep yet. SportingFlyer T·C 08:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe go to #1 on the ugliest (see above)! A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GuardianH.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bates College#Campus, as an alternative to outright delete, especially as some content could be merged selectively and keeping the history is helpful. I am a bit on the fence about this, having considered the thoughts of SportingFlyer above too, but I am perhaps just about convinced by the nom's rationale that the size of the college would not ordinarily justify a substantially sized campus spin-off article, as well as being too close to needing a WP:TNT. It does seem like the sort of thing you would expect to read on their own website, rather than being a notable encyclopedic article. It could be a topic in future if someone really wanted to try and start it over again and find some reliable secondary sources, so I think a redirect is a fair balance. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Redirect option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. I can see arguments for keeping, merging, or even redirecting, deletion is clearly the wrong choice here. This is a collection of notable items, that is part of a notable thing itself -- it's in a sandwich of notability. If it were "List of various things on the Campus of Bates College with a high level of detail, it would probably meet WP:NLIST. The nominator is correct to criticize aspects of the sourcing, so merging might be the appropriate answer until someone can write up a properly referenced article here. If it's kept I can try to clean up some of the more promotional bits. —siro χ o 11:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. This isn't a subject that enjoys significant coverage in reliable third-party (independent) sources. Some photos may belong in a gallery in the school's article. JFHJr (㊟) 01:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...and as far as I know there's no reason to redirect. Campus of X isn't a widely redirected name space, or is it? JFHJr (㊟)

It would a former article that would be redirecting to a mention on another page, so it's completely proper to redirect if that's the choice here. SportingFlyer T·C 22:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think one of the reasons why we're struggling here is because of the oddity of the source analysis. The only "good" source in the article - ie not clearly primary - is a scholarly article which talks about an environmentally friendly dining hall. I also found a book, Designing the Maine Landscape (Mattor and Teegardeb 2009), which I only have access to the references, but clearly talks about the Bates campus, and discussed in College Buildings in New England Before 1860 (Tolles 2011) where I also only have access to the references but also clearly talks about Bates. I also found [4] which I can't read, and my search wasn't exhaustive, so there may be enough here to demonstrate notability, but even then those may not talk about the individual buildings on the campus in the way the article does. It's almost a WP:TNT thing... SportingFlyer T·C 22:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge. I mostly agree with nom’s points. The sources here simply do not meet WP:GNG, and this section could easily be incorporated into the main article for the college. I agree with User:SportingFlyer here.

I do disagree with considering the number of students the college has, however. It has nothing to do with meeting notability, so nom should refrain from using this argument in the future.

However, I do think it’s worth considering User:siro χ o’s suggestion of making this a list. I’m not too familiar with list guidelines, mostly standard articles, however. And, I haven’t seen this done on many other college pages, perhaps there’s a reason? Vergilreader (talk) 03:18, 13 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 Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Damien M. Schiff[edit]

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

Failed judicial nominees are not inherently notable. Sources are all either routine mentions and quotes from his occupation, are BLP1E from his nomination, or are primary sources, with nothing that falls into the GNG. We should redirect to Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies since it has more info about his BLP1E than this article does. Let'srun (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and California. Let'srun (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above, non-BLP1E coverage is all routine attorney coverage and some subject-written opinion pieces (not legal opinions) —siro χ o 11:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: per nom and Siroxo. WP:BLP1E describes best. Migrate useful prose to the event article, but only in due weight within that article's context. JFHJr (㊟) 02:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Upstairs, Downstairs episodes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Suitable Marriage[edit]

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

fails to meet notability guide for its own episode, search hits only give user-generated content and where to watch - as well as the marriage topic Karnataka (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Karnataka (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mistress and the Maids.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Upstairs, Downstairs episodes as WP:ATD-M. It's common to put a short plot summary or synopsis in those, but in this case they were split out in other articles. —siro χ o 10:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Upstairs, Downstairs episodes as per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - As suggested above. Not an episode that generated enough coverage or has otherwise made the kind of impression that would justify an independent article. Dunarc (talk) 20:28, 11 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 see a consensus to Delete this article but I'm happy to restore it to Draft space if an editor wants to improve the sourcing of the article and submit it to WP:AFC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Sargent[edit]

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

Fails every aspect of the notability standard; WP:GNG. Created by a WP:SPA with a possible WP:COI. Hardly if any widespread coverage at all in WP:RS. GuardianH (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Massachusetts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete - I didn't find any substantial reliable refs.~~ :--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails the GNG, obvious WP:PROMO. Ravenswing 04:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: seems to entirely lack notability, and the article only has one source. --Dynamo128 (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom --Devoke water 15:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability. This should be entirely reworked; it is promotional, lacks references, and was created by a SPA with possible COI. However, there are more sources (two listed below), and as the subject passes the GNG, this should be edited, not deleted, as we shouldn't delete articles on notable topics simply for being poorly written. Here's a source assessment table shows that multiple qualifying sources are present, establishing notability:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:IAmHuitzilopochtli
New York Magazine (https://nymag.com/guides/summer/2010/66749/)	Story is written by a journalist at New York Magazine based on several interviews and original reporting.	New York Magazine follows established journalistic standards.	The entire magazine article is devoted to Benjamin Sargent and his work as a chef.	✔ Yes
Thrillist (https://www.thrillist.com/eat/new-york/ben-sargent-dr-klaw-lobster-rolls-new-york-city)	The reporter is not affiliated with Sargent and the article is based on original reporting.	Thrillist is a subsidiary of Vox and is highly credible per this: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/thrillist-bias-credibility/	Again, an entire article is dedicate to him.	✔ Yes
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}}.

IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to consider source analysis. Although how a day old account knows how to compose a source analysis table stirs my curiousity.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The two articles in the source assessment table are heavily dependent on the subject, relying on interview quotes and attributed statements, thus mostly not secondary/independent. Subject may meet GNG I have not investigated in-depth, but those 2 sources are more like
YYY sources, not YYY. —siro χ o 11:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Scratches notability but since BLP I think we should push this forward as WP:TOOSOON. gidonb (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow. If he "scratches notability", meaning satisfying WP:N, then why would we delete? WP:BLP's WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE section does not apply here, as by participating in media interviews and tv shows, this guy has demonstrated that, by the WP:LPI guideline, he has voluntarily made himself a high profile individual, regardless or not of whether we see him as "famous" or an A-list celebrity. IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair question. Scratches notability from below. gidonb (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the source analysis above and my own reading of the 2 stories. To Siroxo's point, my own take was that these stories were independent and relied only partially on interviews. They're long. They work for me. That said, I encourage others to see for themselves; they may see it Siroxo's way.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I mean gotta love a guy who became notable for being an unlicensed lobster roll dealer. Sadly, I think he is basically WP:BLP1E, basically a minor chef with some appearances on Food TV. The derby was the brainchild of Benjamin Sargent, the proprietor of an unlicensed lobster-roll outfit that ran afoul of the city’s health authorities last year. (For fourteen dollars, Sargent, who is known as Dr. Claw or the Chowder Surfer, would dress as a drug pusher and deliver a homemade lobster roll to your door.) His latest venture is a Cooking Channel program called “Hook, Line, and Dinner,” whose première was the occasion for the party, held on the terrace of a Chinese bistro in Williamsburg.[5] Andre🚐 19:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Cullum[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, sources are only IMDb and music database, with third being primary. Record label is also non-notable, searches bring up a fictional namesake and Discogs profiles etc. Karnataka (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and England. Karnataka (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This artist is credited as a producer among other creative credits on several notable albums including some Tears for Fears and Enya albums. Beyond just trivial db entries/lists, we actually have short-but-nontrivial coverage across many sources [6][7][8][9][10][11][12], etc. Seems to cross the threshold of WP:BASIC, may also meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:PRODUCER. (With a reminder that BASIC says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability (with a long note explaining what types of trivial coverage are not included) (addendum, I've now evaluatd PRODUCER below as well, see my commment) —siro χ o 23:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From the list of sources provided by this user, I cannot read two that are from Canadian newspapers due to database access. For all the others, every single one is about someone else's concerts or albums, with Mr. Cullum only being listed very briefly as producer or for other session work. That does not qualify for significant coverage, in which the subject needs to not only appear in a reliable source, but there must also be encyclopedic information that can verify facts in an independent article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Let me describe my thought process on this subject, I hope this is helpful, I do not mean to be confrontational in any way. Per WP:SIGCOV "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. As this is a biography, examples of trivial mentions given in WP:BASIC include simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") ... a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not. paraphrased by me of course.

Again note that, excluding trivial mentions, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability

Now each of these seven sources provides something short that meets SIGCOV, being not trivial.

The Paul McCartney source describes the success with Tears for Fear, high tech production, lush sound, and being more synth-sounding than McCartney wanted. All of this is tied directly to the subject's work and goes beyond a passing mention of the example above (like being hired)
The Enya source is similar, describing the subject's work directly and in detail.
Then we have a variety of short coverage that go beyond just "being hired",
- We have reviews of recordings that discuss the sound in depth. Keep in mind that recording production is a creative endeavor. To discuss the sound of the album and name the producer is to review the producers work.
  - Eg. an ethereal and juiced-up orchestral concept album built around Brennan's soaring voice and crystalline harp work..... It was produced by Ross Cullum (Tori Amos, Tears For Fears, Enya) and Chris Hughes[13]
- We have discussions of the artists' career and perception amongst peers and industry
  - eg. for example, Blake opted out of recording his album with hip label stablemate Howie B after just a few days, choosing producer Ross Cullum (who has worked with Enya) instead. The album was recorded at Cullum's studio The River in London[14]
  - eg. ...they were quickly signed by Universal Classics and Jazz who enlisted Ross Cullum, the man who worked with Enya, to produce their first album,[15]
  - eg. The creation of the "classical crossover" album Journey On followed a chance meeting with Zarecki, who convinced Hawkins to fly to his homeland to record the instrumental component of the album with Polish musicians, then travel on to London to record her vocals under the direction of another producer, Ross Cullum.[16]

We don't need any original research to extract content from any of those sources. And there are indeed more similar sources we can pull from, I stopped looking when I felt I had enough to demonstrate that I could write a start class article about this subject. We can attribute where necessary to keep WP:VOICE, and the variety of sources can help avoid WP:UNDUE weight.

—siro χ o 22:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Keep - Found Quite a few references

the-paulmccartney-project

tunefind PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 04:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't references, they're a list of stuff found in a basic Google search. See Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. The only thing in that list that can be considered reliable is AllMusic, but all they have is a list of credits in which this man's name appears briefly. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete fail to prove WP:NM and per Karnataka ÀvîRâm7^(talk) 17:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The "Keep" voters above are trying diligently and probably in good faith, but Wikipedia's rules make it tough for producers who are only listed in the credits for other people's works. That is all that can be found in any of the sources currently used in the article or proposed in this debate above. I have no doubt that Mr. Cullum has worked with many important musicians, but he has simply received no media coverage in which someone highlighted his works and career in their own right. And that's what we need for an encyclopedic article with verifiable facts for the reader's benefit. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Given the disagreement above, I've now also evaluated WP:PRODUCER. This individual very clearly meets WP:PRODUCER.3, playing a major role in co-creating many albums and songs:

The Hurting - [17]
Points on the Curve - [18]
Prince Charming - [19]
Watermark - [20]
Evening Falls... (single) - [21]
Orinoco Flow (single) - [22]
Under the Pink - [23]
Dance Hall Days (single) - [24]
Bajo el signo de Caín - [25]
In the Running - [26]
And several other albums and songs...

—siro χ o 19:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since he was active in the mid-80s/90s, I was convinced that I could find significant offline coverage. I was wrong -- I searched ProQuest, Newsbank, and Newspapers.com and didn't come up with much beyond what is already mentioned.

There are two very positive sentences in the LA Times about his work with Emma Townshend: (Nichols, N. (1998, Mar 22). Pop music; album review; Emma Townshend "winterland" EastWest, home edition, Los Angeles Times) and a snarky paragraph in the Washington Post about his work with Moya Brennan. (Moya Brennan, Two Horizons" [final edition]. (2004, Feb 27). The Washington Post). There's also this, from in a story about Tears for Fears in the Sun-Sentinel: "They kept producer Chris Hughes from The Hurting, but elected not to use engineer Ross Collum (sic), whose meticulousness finally caused a split between him and Hughes while working on an album by the group Wang Chung." (De Atley, R. (1985, Sep 20).No tears, no fears for British (Sun-Sentinal edition).

There's a lengthy interview here: [27] It isn't a valid source, but there is a lot of information if anyone is up for doing a more targeted search. Commenting rather than weighing in; I'm in between weak keep and weak delete. His work is influential (based on his credits), but "influential" is subjective, and there is a distinct paucity of coverage. JSFarman (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not all newspapers are listed online, so there could still possibly be offline news coverage. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 5 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. This might be controversial but there are some editors who object to a redirect that is proposed here on solid grounds. So, I'm closing this as a Delete. If an editor believes there should be a Redirect from this page title, you can create it and if there are objections to it, then the discussion can be brought to RFD. But a Redirect won't come out of this closure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Celtic clans[edit]

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

WP:OR WP:CROSSCAT of language family (Celtic languages) and geography (Category:Irish clans is a child of Category:Culture of Ireland; Category:Scottish clans is a child of Category:Social history of Scotland). The Celtic language family is WP:NONDEFINING for these clans, they could and often did have English or Scots as their native language. There is a strong consensus building on a long series of precedents to not mix up language families and countries/states, see the landmark decision Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries for an anthology. Besides, the "Celtic women" rename & purge of 27 June 2023 already confirmed people after 500 CE are no longer called "Celts/Celtic". To speak of Lists of clans of Celtic peoples, who disappeared from history after 500 CE, in reference to clans who did not appear until the High Middle Ages (after 1000 CE), is simply WP:OR. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 22#Category:Lists of modern Indo-European tribes and clans. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Language, and Geography. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neither Scottish nor Irish clans are Celtic clans per se, due to a lot of immigration and assimilation in the course of history. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of ancient Celtic peoples and tribes, this contains a comprehensive list of all. If someone wants to read about Celtic tribes, and clans it is the best redirect, and it is based around the ancient Celtic peoples. Des Vallee (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clans and tribes are two different things. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above. I don't see the redirect as most people would not see the things as synonymous. Mangoe (talk) 04:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps add both lists to Celts#See also, and redirect Celtic clans to Celts.Pam D 07:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't solve the issues. Groups of families in Ireland and Scotland speaking a mixture of Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic, Scots and English from the High Middle Ages have very little to do with a purely language-based language family grouping across Europe and Asia Minor which disappeared in Late Antiquity. We just shouldn't lump "Celts" and "clans" together. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects only need to be useful in description as an example Accomodate is just a mispelling but the redirect is still useful. As "clan" is synonymous with "tribe," such a redirect would be useful. The term "Celtic tribes" has been used to describe the societal system of ancient celts. As an example.

From Hillforts to Oppida in ‘Celtic’ Iberia, by Martin Almagro-Gorbea, Proceedings of the British Academy

The spread of the hillfort phenomenon represents a growing instability. Moreover, demographic growth and control of summer pastures is reflected in the increased use of transhumance to avoid the winter aridity of the Meseta plains and the harsh winters in the mountains (Almagro- Gorbea 1987a, 42; 1987b). This process favoured a hierarchical social organization, evidence for which is provided by grave goods of Celtic warrior clans (Almagro-Gorbea1993,148). It was this, together with an abundance of iron in these regions (Maluquer 1987), which helped to underpin the vigorous expansion of the Celtiberian Culture.

"Clan" is also mentioned in relation to the Celts in: Celtic chiefdom, Celtic state and Decentralized Complexity: The Case of Bronze Age Northern Europe. Des Vallee (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are mistaken. Clans and tribes are two different things. wikt:clan doesn't mention "tribe", while wikt:tribe states that a tribe is An ethnic group larger than a band or clan (and which may contain clans) but smaller than a nation (and which in turn may be contained within a nation).. Merriam-Webster confirms at clan and tribe that tribes are divided into clans, and several clans can make up a tribe. "clan" is more synonymous with "family" , "kin", or "house". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Celtic clans & Lists of Celtic clansto List of ancient Celtic peoples and tribes. Clan is often used loosely as a synonym for tribe or a subdivision thereof so it's better to have a redirect than a redlink. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clans and tribes are two different things. The ancient Celts disappear from our written sources around 500 CE, while Irish and Scottish clans do not appear until after 1000 CE. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider the Redirect option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are several redirects suggested here as well as editors saying redirects are unnecessary so I'm hoping for some more feedback.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update Related page Lists of Celts has been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Celts. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Des Vallee. List of ancient Celtic peoples and tribes is the right place for this. Nederlandse Leeuw's objection that Clans and tribes are two different things is irrelevant unless they are suggesting that clans are also not people. PS: The claim that Irish clans didn't exist until 500 CE is either equally invalid or relies on a picky and stilted definition of 'clans' (such linguistic jiu jitsu is, I believe, exactly why the aforementioned list says 'people'). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Peoples, plural of the noun people (synonymous with "tribe(s)"). I'm not denying that clans are made up of more than one person (plural: people or persons; synonymous with "individual(s)"), but that is a different noun with a different grammar. I believe you are confusing the two nouns. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes even less sense. You have a definition of peoples that would not include clans? Whilst I'm certain you said it IGF, that is literally the worst argument for a delete that I've ever heard. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Last1in Ok let me try to explain to you what I also said above. In short: a "people" can include multiple "clans", and "peoples" is synonymous with "tribes".

But clans and tribes are two different things. wikt:clan doesn't mention "tribe", while wikt:tribe states that a tribe is An ethnic group larger than a band or clan (and which may contain clans) but smaller than a nation (and which in turn may be contained within a nation). Merriam-Webster confirms at clan and tribe that tribes are divided into clans, and several clans can make up a tribe. "clan" is more synonymous with "family" , "kin", or "house".

In other words, a "people" or "tribe" can include multiple "clans", but just 1 "clan" does not make up an entire "tribe" or "people".

Perhaps an analogy to what the dictionaries are saying works best:
A person / human being is like a tree.

A "clan" or "family" is like a group of trees of the same species which have spawned from each other's seeds.

A "people" or "tribe" is like a forest with several groups of trees of the same species, and a lot of cross-breeding between those groups of trees. They are all somewhat related as a species ("a people/tribe") and continue to interbreed, but you can still see differences between the groups ("clans/families").

I hope this helps. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To recap, a group of related trees is not a forest, since only groups of groups of trees qualify. 'People' means a group of individuals, whilst 'peoples' are groups of groups of individuals. Thus it is imperative that we completely scrap this topic name instead of redirecting because, when a person searches for tree-groups, getting a list of forests will completely baffle them. Readers should definitely not be allowed to see the trees for the forests. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. There's a clear consensus that this article should be kept. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 23:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Art Deco stamps[edit]

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

Contested PROD (listed by @David Fuchs:, deprodded by @Ww2censor:) - "No usage of secondary sources that demonstrate Art Deco stamps themselves are a subject of significant commentary beyond stamps of the contemporary time period, etc."

In my opinion the links Ww2censor added aren't sufficient for demonstrating notability and keeping the article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets notability requirements. McFilet O' Fish Fan (talk) 23:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources provided are about, significantly, Art Deco stamps. There's plenty of sources about historical stamps of the time period, etc., and stamps occasionally get minor mentions in works on Art Deco, but there's no WP:SIGCOV here. The added external links don't appear to meet reliable source thresholds, either (fan pages and Wordpress blog.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I left a notification at WikiProject Philately. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced as per topic and several External links are topic specific, so meets guideline. An interesting article, thanks for pointing it out via this AfD. Let's call in Wikipedia stamp expert Gwillhickers. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd expect a longtime editor to be able to articulate a keep vote that actually explains how the article meets notability criteria better than the editor with 18 edits. Can you explain where any of those sources significantly cover Art Deco stamps? And not just stamps from the time period (the majority of which aren't Art Deco?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well sourced.. As for "notability", there are many categories of stamps, and it could just as easily be opined that a particular category isn't notable, so we'll need more than an opinion that this particular category isn't notable before we take an axe to another editor's time, effort and good faith contribution. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Art Deco stamps are a recognized area of Topical stamp collecting. The American Topical Association has posted online a lengthy video on this topic, See Tom Broadhead, "Art Deco! The 1925 Paris Exposition," 2021, Accessible from link [here]. Other Wikipedia articles on topical stamps include Birds on stamps, Insects on stamps, People on stamps,U.S. space exploration history on U.S. stamps, Soviet space exploration history on Soviet stamps, etc. I have added several references specifically devoted to Art Deco on stamps and some other links. Without belaboring the point, if this article is not acceptable, huge numbers of lists would have to go. Ecphora (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per refs added by Ecphora and also the many pre-existing refs to the Scott catalogue, a print publication. Print counts, too.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. What significant sources are the keep lvoters seeing that I'm not? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources cited in article that specifically deal with Art Deco stamps:
- Tom Broadhead, "Art Deco! The 1925 Paris Exposition" (2001) Published by American Topical (stamp) Association 45 minute video discussing French Art Deco stamps. See link here
- Groten, Arthur H., M.D., “The Paraphilately Page - Art Deco and the 1925 Paris Exposition,” American Stamp Dealer & Collector, no. 88 (Mar 2015), pp. 55-57.
- “Des Timbres Art Deco,” L'Echo de la Timbrologie, no. 1624 (Oct. 1990) (in French).
- Ann Mette Heindorff, History on Stamps, Art Deco (1920s - 1930s) (page from philatelic exhibit)
Ecphora (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What makes Heindorff or Broadhead reliable sources? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question about Broadhead. I looked around and found this: Wikipedia:Video links. My interpretation is that it makes no difference that it's a video as opposed to a print reference. The ATA is certainly a good source; in this case it's part of a tutorial which says it was curated and not some random presentation.

Ann Mette Heindorff: I was unable to open that page but I found this other archive link

I'll note that her work is cited in references on the English, French, Swedish, Dutch, Japanese, German, Chinese, Italian and Polish Wikipedias; I didn't check the others.^{[28],[29],[30],[31][32],[33],[34],[35],[36],[37],[38],[39],[40],[41],[42],[43],[44],[45]}

The Russian and Spanish Wikipedias have articles on art deco stamps:
ru:Почтовые марки в стиле ар-деко

es:Sellos postales Art decó

Both cite Ann Mette Heindorff.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've found checking other Wikipedias is a good WP:BEFORE step.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other Wikipedias with generally looser standards aren't particularly a good BEFORE strategy, especially if one can't actually come up with examples of expertise for the sources. It's an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's the "check the other articles for refs strategy". --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on sources provided by Ecphora. Ingratis (talk) 10:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many other articles, on many topics, should be deleted long before this one if we agree with the nominator. Thanks Ecphora for adding several new citations though I'm sure there are also more to be found in other languages. ww2censor (talk) 11:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ecphora and A. B.. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, an example of why the Prod list should be watched like a hawk. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:56, 8 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!} 22:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vaazhai (2023 film)[edit]

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

Vaazhai (2023 film)

Unreleased film that does not satisfy the notability guidelines for unreleased films, which are only notable is production itself has received significant coverage by independent sources. This article only says that the film is planned and that filming has started, so the article says nothing that implies film notability prior to release. The sources are largely in Tamil, but have been machine-translated, which is good enough to see that there isn't independent secondary coverage. None of the references are independent. They say that the film is upcoming. We knew that, but that doesn't make it notable. Maybe it will be when it is released.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	tamil.behindwoods.com	Announcement of title of film	No	Yes	?	No
2	kalakkalcinema.com	Announcement of title of film	No	Yes	?	No
3	tamil.abplive.com	First phase of shooting has been completed	No	No	?	No
4	newindianexpress.com	Interview with leading lady	No	Yes	Yes	No
5	zeenews.india.com	Advance publicity about the film and the directors	No	No	?	no
6	indulgexpress.com	Says that shooting began	No	Yes	?	No
7	cinemaexpress.com	A puff piece in which the composer praises the film	No	Yes	Yes	No
8	cinemaexpress.com	Same as 7	No	Yes	Yes	No
9	dinamani.com	Release of the poster for the film	No	No	?	No

There is also a draft by the same editor, which is almost the same as this article, so that this article should be deleted, and the draft can be left to be expanded and resubmitted when the film is released. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Tamil Nadu. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFF DonaldD23 talk to me 23:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Excellent source analysis by nominator. Delete vice draftify becasue as nom states, Draft:Vaazhai already exists. This is also a copy/paste move according to this comparison, which violates our WP:ATTREQ copyright requirements. -2pou (talk) 16:16, 10 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!} 22:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elise Pone[edit]

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

Doesn't meet GNG (as majority of refs are just statistics), WP:MMANOT (as having three fights in a major organization no longer qualifies as notable) or WP:KICKGUIDE (as winning a regional title has never qualified). Nswix (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Martial arts, and Pennsylvania. Nswix (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable martial artist. No claim to notability. Does not meet WP:NKICK for Muaythai at all, nor WP:MMA criteria. Potential COI/vanity page Lethweimaster (talk) 11:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She fails to meet the notability criteria for either MMA fighters or kickboxers. Fight results, databases, and amateur results do not constitute significant independent coverage in reliable sources. I do not believe WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails on in-depth biographical coverage (GNG) as well as special criteria noted above. JFHJr (㊟) 02:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:MMA.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:05, 11 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. Deja vu as I closed the second AFD on this article subject. I'll protect the page title up to extended confirmed but won't issue full protection as of now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Gruhn[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Same reasons as first two deletions. Subject still doesn't meet notability from last deletion (a few months ago). Adding IMDB references and a couple of links is never going to change that. I'm also beginning to suspect COI/vanity page. Nswix (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Pennsylvania. Nswix (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. No significant sourcing, and this is his third go-around. Time to stop wasting our time. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt as its the 3rd nomination. Absolutely no claim to notability and horrendous sourcing (Smoothcomp,  dogbrothers.com , facebook.com ect) fails WP:GNG. COI/vanity page. Lethweimaster (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Almost no change since previous version was deleted in May. The only new additions are a link to an MMA student of his and his appearance on a podcast. There's nothing to show he meets any WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt: per above; perhaps salt also Ryan James Gruhn for good measure? JFHJr (㊟) 02:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the #Coaching section, it's written Gruhn is the head coach to Invicta FC's Elise Pone who trains out of Central PA Mixed Martial Arts. Elise Pone is also currently AFD and has been created by the same user in User:Mmareg. It seems Mmareg may possibly have undisclosed COI. In his case, I would consider give a warning to submit future articles via draft first to make sure it complies with notability guidelines before going onto main space. Lethweimaster (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:06, 11 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 Robert Bigelow. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Budget Suites of America[edit]

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

Merge to article on owner Robert Bigelow. There appears to be no significant coverage in reliable sources. The topic fails basic WP:GNG. There are currently two references in the current article. The first to the LA Times fails to mention either Budget Suites of America or Robert Bigelow. The second is to the chain's own website. Checking possible sources finds no significant coverage. There are reviews of individual Budget Suites, primarily on travel sites, there are mentions of Budget Suites as being owned by Bigelow in articles about Bigelow's activities, and occasion incidental mentions in articles like, Living in hotels, students lose ground while dealing with cramped rooms and eviction fears, but no significant coverage. Merger seems appropriate as the chain's only significance seems to be that it is owned by Robert Bigelow. Note: the article was created in February 2005 by an IP editor who also created the Robert Bigelow article at the same time. --Bejnar (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bejnar (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arizona, Nevada, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Robert Bigelow - a "chain" of 19 budget hotels is probably going to be non-notable unless something awful happens (mass shooting, massive fire, alien invasion, etc.) Show me good refs and I'll reconsider.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Robert Bigelow: Concur with the nom here. Forget the size, the subject simply does not meet GNG User:Let'srun 16:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Robert Bigelow.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:33, 11 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. Withdrawn, I have changed my mind after reading the Keep votes. (non-admin closure) 🌶️Jala peño🌶️ Don't click this link! 10:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish Republic[edit]

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

No indication of notability for this book. This can ideally be moved to Irish Republic, since the vast majority of people typing in The Irish Republic are looking for the country, not the book. 🌶️Jala peño🌶️ Don't click this link! 15:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, History, and Ireland. 🌶️Jala peño🌶️ Don't click this link! 15:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although partisan, it is an important book in documenting modern Irish history. In A “Manly Study”? Irish Women Historians, 1868–1949 (2006), Springer Verlag, author Nadia C. Smith states: "The Irish Republic, one of the most popular Irish histories ever written, made Dorothy Macardle one of the most famous and influential Irish historians of her generation." See, in particular: O’Halpin, Eunan (1999). "Historical revisit: Dorothy Macardle, The Irish Republic (1937)". Irish Historical Studies. 31 (123): 389–394. and Shannon, Catherine B. (2010). "Shaping Irish historical discourse". Irish Literary Supplement. 29 (2): 16–17. See also throughout the volumes Lane, Leeann (2016). Dorothy Macardle. Dublin: University College Dublin Press. ISBN 978-1-910820-09-4. and Smith, Nadia Clare (2007). Dorothy Macardle: A Life. Dublin: Woodfield Press. ISBN 978-1-905094-03-5., as well as Regan, John M. (2010). "Irish public histories as an historiographical problem". Irish Historical Studies. 37 (146): 265–292. There are numerous reviews of The Irish Republic including Mansergh, Nicholas (1966). "Book Review: Commonwealth of Nations: The Irish Republic". International Journal. 21 (3): 390–391. Additional reviews were published in 1937 & 1938, but I do not have access to those papers, for example, to The Times. --Bejnar (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My own WP:BEFORE identified the same sources (which cover the subject in some depth and as an independent topic) as are noted by Bejnar above. I had added some of them to the article before coming to contribute to this discussion. To my mind, the volume of coverage of the book (its influence, relevance, neutrality, etc), seems to stand separate from coverage of the book's author, her life, etc. And so I would argue that the title should be retained. (If consensus is that the book doesn't independently meet GNG or SIGCOV, then - at the very least - the title should be retained as a redirect. Certainly outright deletion doesn't seem appropriate at all at all...) Guliolopez (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the relevant standard. Moreover, it's already long enough (and judging by the O'Halpin source, expandable enough) that merging into the article on the author would be awkward. XOR'easter (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 22:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kularathna Central College[edit]

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

This article was written by a WP:COI account and has been maintained by WP:SOCK accounts since 2017, many of which are now blocked. More importantly, there is no sign of passing WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Best I can find in Sinhala searches are The Papare (translated), which mentions the school just once, and Kelimandala (translated), which also only mentions the school once. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Sri Lanka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability, Fails NSCHOOL and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concur fails WP:NORG / WP:NSCHOOL. Dan arndt (talk) 02:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 22:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deiyandara National College[edit]

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

No indication of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Searches in Sinhala yielded Lankadeepa, a mention in an exhaustive listing of schools, and News Radio, a passing mention in a list of schools closed due to bad weather. The coverage needs to be much more detailed than that to warrant a stand-alone article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Sri Lanka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concur fails WP:NORG / WP:NSCHOOL. Dan arndt (talk) 02:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:29, 9 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ko Ko Hein[edit]

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

BLP with no acceptable sources. I was unable to find significant coverage in any language so there is no evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Burmese searches came back with nothing and English searches yielded SofaScore, a basic database, and ESPN, a squad list mention. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This fails Wikipedia:Notability. Neither of the sources turned up by Spiderone are acceptable. Here's a source assessment table:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:IAmHuitzilopochtli
ESPN	ESPN is a sports media outlet journalistically independent from Ko Ko Hein.	ESPN is known for producing reliable reporting.	Just a passing mention.	✘ No
SofaScore	The source is not affiliated with Ko Ko Hein.	This is a random gambling website.	His name is simply present in a database.	✘ 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}}.

IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per source analysis above. Jogurney (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on failure to meet notability criteria. Instead of deleting pages about such people it sometimes makes sense to resort to redirect, but there is no clear affiliation with a certain sports team here. Suitskvarts (talk) 10:02, 11 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 Algeria at the World Athletics Championships. Please do not take action on an article being discussed until the AFD has been closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Algeria at the 1997 World Championships in Athletics[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. A draftification was contested. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Algeria. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Algeria at the World Athletics Championships: Not ready for main space, as it's entirely unsourced and the original creator is currently blocked from article space for failure to communicate. Draftification was contested so I believe redirecting to be the best option here. A relevant deletion discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algeria at the 2022 World Athletics Championships, where 16 other relevant articles were redirected. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algeria at the 1993 World Championships in Athletics is also another relevant deletion discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as ATD. Mccapra (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All the information in this article (if we can call it that) is available in the World Athletics Championships Statistics Handbook, which is already included in the sources at Algeria at the World Athletics Championships. All the information can be merged into that article as covered by its citation. SFB 14:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and merged the material, given the previous deletion discussion on this, so recommend we just close this as merged. The material in the history was cited and appropriate. I think we all could have saved quite a bit of time here if we took that approach in the first place, which is what has previously been recommended in past discussions on this type of small delegation article. SFB 15:43, 6 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!} 02:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard poker hand[edit]

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

Very poorly referenced topic, possibly WP:OR since no source cited (there are just two footnotes) suggests this is a common name, and GS search for this topic yields zero results. Some content might merit merger to the Glossary of poker terms and/or List of poker hands, but again, just two footnotes... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many of these have a long documented history. Many seemingly going back to before at least 1956 [46], here's another reference [47] from University of Chicago Press. This seems to be another ref [48]. Discussed as a group so they also meet NLIST. —siro χ o 10:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NLIST. Sources provided make this a notable topic worthy of a standalone article User:Let'srun 18:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Discussed as long ago as 1901 and treated as a group, these are well-suited to list treatment. XOR'easter (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sina Kollmann[edit]

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

The subject has made at least four appearances for the Liechtenstein women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Europe. JTtheOG (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:34, 30 July 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 12:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Avilich (talk) 22:44, 11 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD Telinet Private Limited[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP flat and square, no sources talk about the company apart from a brief mention in the clickbaity articles cited — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 10:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and India. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 10:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking thru creator's contributions, it screams of WP:UPE — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 10:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete cursory check suggests this subject does not meet CORP. I'd be willing to investigate WP:THREE in depth. —siro χ o 11:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a little company. Few this size are ever found notable. Depending on you you interpret "US$1,20,942.70", the maximum size is $12 million.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., Show me good refs and I'll reconsider.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the numbering format "US$1,20,942.70" is about Crores and Lakhs in the Indian numbering system--Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Written like an advertisement and would need another user to recreate it in a completely neutral point of view. HarukaAmaranth (話) 18:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:10, 11 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maher Al-Taweel[edit]

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

Badly sourced BLP. No evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. My own searches in English and Arabic ("ماهر الطويل") failed to yield any sources addressing this footballer in detail. The only results that I could find were for namesakes. Since SPORTBASIC states that Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources., the article must be removed unless acceptable sources come to light. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per my BEFORE search. Jogurney (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:51, 8 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Essam Shqalo[edit]

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

BLP with no decent sources. No evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Best sources in Arabic that I could find were eSyria 1, a squad listing and mention of getting a yellow card, and eSyria 2, a squad list mention. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a low-value (6-word) page about a non-notable footballer. Suitskvarts (talk) 10:06, 11 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 and merge‎ into a single article. Most editors focussed on notability of the event in general, but the question of two articles vs one has also been addressed. There were some inappropriate comments and unusual !votes, but I think most good-faith participants support a merged article on the topic. Thanks to Epicgenius for merging the articles. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 09:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Cenat riot[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS; a minor riot, that currently lacks the WP:SUSTAINED coverage required for events. While WP:NOTCRYSTAL forbids us from speculating about whether such coverage will exist, I will add that I don't see any indication that it will.

I am also nominating the following article; I would support redirecting both to Kai Cenat.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and New York. BilledMammal (talk) 09:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Kai Cenat riot has already been merged with Kai Cenat Union Square giveaway, so what we're discussing is whether Kai Cenat Union Square giveaway is notable. Epicgenius (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Kai Cenat per OP. — Czello ^(music) 09:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep riot article, merge giveaway article. Per WP:RAPID. The event happened less than 24 hours ago, so it's too soon to assume that this event will or will not be notable. Per WP:LASTING, "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." While I wouldn't rush to create articles that early on, I wouldn't support an immediate deletion either. However, since the giveaway caused the riot, I think it would be better to merge. S5A-0043^Talk 11:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I support redirection; if it turns out that sustained coverage does occur then the content is still there and can easily be restored. I consider that possibility unlikely, but regardless in the meantime we should not have an article in mainspace that doesn't meet our notability requirements. I note also that rapid isn't a reason to keep an article that has been nominated; it is merely a recommendation to delay nominating the article, that in this case I didn't feel was relevant. BilledMammal (talk) 11:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete and merge to Kai Cenat because I feel that this is just barely not notable enough to have its own article. Time will tell, however. IncompA 11:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep per WP:RAPID, renominate later if needed. —siro χ o 11:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now a lot of news are written as article, which is not worth advocating. If there is no follow-up report, it should be merged into the person article.--日期20220626 (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID as stated above. ADifferentMan (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete the "giveaway" article per WP:A10. Draftify this article as a compromise between WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RAPID. My feeling is that this is just another slow-news-day story about influencers causing trouble in public and will be forgotten about before this discussion even closes, and that is precisely why an encyclopedia should not cover breaking news. Incubating in draftspace will allow time for proper coverage of the event to develop (instead of the "rush to publish something" stories we're seeing now), but most likely that coverage will just never happen. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge reduced details to Kai Cenat I guess we just forget teens did this at malls all the time for pop acts in the past, and back when the Beatles arrived in America. If this happens in some power center in suburban Denver nobody would care, but our old friend East Coast bias is here to oversensationalize what was at the end of the day just a badly-organized stuff drop. And it's bad form to name a 'riot' after someone, this must be renamed something better and deleted as a BLP issue. Nate • (chatter) 14:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This was a significant riot, with dozens of arrests, numerous injured and extensive damage to vehicles and local businesses. Keep this article, merge the giveaway article into it. Juneau Mike (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The other article is not meant to cover the giveaway and only the giveaway. I chose the giveaway title because it described the entire event. The giveaway article is longer than the riot article, so the riot article should redirect to the giveaway article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge them togheter into one article

Sebbog13 (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SUSTAINED as it says "over a sufficiently significant period of time". This riot happened less than 24 hours ago as of my writing, developments since then include Kai taking a picture of the "riot" and posting it online: [49]. Another reason to keep is the WP:DEPTH of the coverage involved. (BBC), (CNN), (ABC). The 14th Street–Union Square station was also shut down during the riot. (Bloomberg) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NYPOST - New York Post isn't a reliable source. WP:DEPTH isn't relevant here; the lack of sustained coverage is. BilledMammal (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: Okay, so how isn't WP:DEPTH relevant here? Both WP:DEPTH and WP:SUSTAINED are from the same notability (WP:N) guideline. You also have not addressed where it says in the guideline "over a sufficiently significant period of time". 24 hours isn't "significant" when it comes to events, and WP:DEPTH in those 24 hours also establishes notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't relevant here because they are separate requirements; SUSTAINED must be met to keep the article, and as you point out it has not been.

Both WP:DEPTH and WP:SUSTAINED are from the same notability (WP:N) guideline. DEPTH is part of WP:NEVENT, SUSTAINED is part of WP:N. BilledMammal (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I point that out? I said WP:SUSTAINED does not apply given such a short time frame. Also where are you getting that WP:DEPTH is part of WP:NEVENT? Even if that were the case this riot counts as an event. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When you said 24 hours isn't "significant" when it comes to events. SUSTAINED doesn't include an exception for length of time the article has existed; while WP:IAR may apply to some events, such as the Assassination of Shinzo Abe, it doesn't apply to all events, and I don't see a reason why it would apply to this event.

Also where are you getting that WP:DEPTH is part of WP:NEVENT? Follow the link to WP:DEPTH and check what guideline it is part of. BilledMammal (talk) 06:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the giveaway and riot articles. Also, I'd argue that the riot carries more notability than the giveaway. —theMainLogan (t•c) 17:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both articles, merge content to the article on Kai Cenat, and include a mention in the PlayStation 5 article with a link to the Kai Cenat article. I agree with Nate above that this seems to be an East Coast bias issue. If a incident of similar size had occurred in Los Angeles, it probably would have been covered as a "melee" or "civil disturbance". Also, the only other video game console I am aware of that caused people to do desperate things is the Nintendo Wii. WP already covers what happened in that rather unfortunate instance in the article on KDND. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The PlayStation is irrelevant. See The New York Times. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? That article states in the fifth paragraph: "Mr. Cenat and another streamer, Fanum, had announced plans to hand out PlayStation 5 consoles at the park at 4 p.m." So the PlayStation 5 is clearly relevant. I doubt that many people would have shown up if those two streamers had announced plans to hand out Chromebooks.--Coolcaesar (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's coverage of the PlayStation 5 does not need to include a tangential event. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both articles to Kai Cenat. This event is quite significant for myself as this is the very first time that protests came about with gaming related events, as if they have been online only all before this, even during pre-COVID era. But in a wider sense, this event is not notable and only relevant in some parts of the world. MarioJump83 (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should just be part of Kai Cenat's Wikipedia page, not a seperate page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomMasterReal (talk • contribs) 20:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now; Delete Later: Major news outlets will be discussing this for weeks on end but 5 years from now, is anyone really going to care? I highly doubt it. Jaiquiero (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This riot was massive and dangerous. It was also in NYC out of all places. It will be talked about for a long time, especially on social media. Having this page is helpful and showcases how impactful it truly was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IGotAPHD (talk • contribs) 00:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect both articles to Kai Cenat. Long term significance is zero. No deaths or serious injuries, a handful of arrests. Big deal. Subject fails WP:NEVENT WP:LASTING WP:GEOSCOPE WP:PERSISTENCE (coverage is already fading) and WP:SENSATIONAL. Both articles are a glaring violation of WP:DELAY. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The impression that I get is that you're presupposing that it's not notable and attempting to back that up. From USA Today, Cenat is due in court on August 18. Coverage will clearly exist for his arraignment. From the guideline about lasting coverage: It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect; plenty of other users have brought up that this AfD was opened rapidly. Not sure why this article has to be deleted when it's still getting routine edits. Riotous behavior does not need to rival January 6 to warrant an article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. There have been 65 arrests, which I would argue is more than a handful, especially for something that was only intended to be a giveaway of electronics. As for there being no deaths, it would be immoral to say that a riot isn’t notable just because a family wasn’t devastated by the death of a relative (“your son must lose his life for this article to be notable” would be a very condescending notability guideline). As for there being no serious injuries, of the at least nine people injured, an officer was severely beaten and a minor suffered burns from a large firecracker. In addition to the above, I cannot name a single other giveaway with such an unforeseen outcome as this one, and I would be very surprised if anybody else could.

I understand why a lot of Wikipedia users would be biased towards scrutinising this article and therefore opting to delete or merge this article due to the sheer amount of (usually unsourced) fancruft surrounding content creators, but I also understand that if this was a regular riot, nobody would bat an eye as to wether it’s notable as a standalone article, especially since this article in particular is very reasonably sourced for an event relating to a twitch streamer. — Mugtheboss (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Both it's very clear that we don't need two articles on the riot/giveaway but I don't think we even need one, it's a single controversy related to a celebrity that will die down quickly and the large news coverage wasn't due to the notability of the riot but due to the fame of the person, so this can all be included in his bio article. EoRdE6^(Talk) 02:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also note that most of the keep !votes seem to be making assertions without citing any policy or guidelines. Any objective reading of NEVENT leaves no real doubt that these articles do not meet P&G based criteria for inclusion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Articles I tend to have inclusionist tendencies when it comes to deleting articles, but I feel like two articles that cover basically the same thing is excessive. I would be open to copying the bulk of this article into Kai Cenat's page, but for now I still support a separate article covering the riots. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 03:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I’m the original writer of this article. The reason I created it was due to the amount of arrests, the fact that this seems to have ended Kai Cenat’s career and will likely far outlive his relevance, the amount of property damage, and finally the amount of media attention this received. For example this was the first story covered on NBC Nightly last night. I feel that the aftermath will last for months if not years because of the circumstances that caused the riot will likely lead to legislation regulating social media events. I also agree with merging the Giveaway Article. CaptainAhab1841 (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC) comment moved from top of page; feel free to revert if unwelcome — 2600:1700:87D3:3460:917D:D4E0:9CA4:9277 (talk) 03:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CaptainAhab1841 Please read WP:NEVENT and also WP:DELAY. While your contributions to the project are appreciated, in this case it is likely the article's creation was premature and the subject does not appear to meet the community's criteria for inclusion. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think both sides have convincing arguments here, so I wouldn't use words like "likely" as that implies an outcome. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to read a credible P&G based argument for retention. But I will check in tomorrow and see if anything has changed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It gained enough traction to be notable in its own right. ImYourTurboLover (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please cite policy and guidelines to support your assertion. Please note the criteria for NEVENT which these pages appear to violate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't violate WP:NEVENT per WP:DEPTH and WP:LASTING, these arguments have already been drawn out above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DEPTH is one criteria, not exclusive of the others. LASTING is too silly for words. A "riot" that resulted in no deaths, no serious injuries, no substantial property damage, a handful of arrests and whose coverage is already fading? This doesn't pass the laugh test. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's the laugh test? ImYourTurboLover (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What does the lack of deaths, injuries or proper damage have to do with whether the event meets the notability guidelines? Since when are those determining factors for if an event of this nature has a lasting impact? I assume you obviously don't mean that the riot needs said factors in order to be considered notable, let alone any riot. But isn't it enough that this event has had a plethora of news coverage that actually contextualized the event itself? I'd place my vote between a ~~merge to Kai's article and weak~~ keep because I'm still personally iffy on if this will have a lasting impact in a few years - maybe it will, maybe it won't, maybe it's too close to tell. But regardless, I think WP:LASTING's final sentence should also be taken into consideration: "This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." Maybe we should've waited at least a week or so to nominate for deletion, but oh well, too late now. PantheonRadiance (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed the failure of the two pages to meet our criteria for inclusion in my above merge/redirect vote. The arguments being employed for article retention here would set the bar so low that almost any civil disturbance that get a couple days news coverage would qualify. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ad Orientem I read your initial response and besides your point on the event's lasting impact, I disagree with you. The event has already received international coverage from a plethora of sources outside of New York (The Verge, ABC News, The Washington Post), and even outside the US (BBC News, Reuters), so geoscope shouldn't even come close to qualifying. Sensationalism is somewhat debatable but I don't see any unconfirmed rumors, speculation or any sort of info based on poor fact-checking circulating from this event; plenty of reliable outlets not only verified the info themselves through their editorial process but also checked other reliable outlets as well. As for persistence, other editors above also pointed out that he's awaiting trial so there may be more coverage that comes in addition to the already existing news about the event. That may be crystal-ball speculation, but a bit of common sense and partial rulebending could apply for until that date happens. Finally, I'd argue that if it doesn't fully pass NEVENT, it at least meets criteria #2 of it based on the sheer coverage alone. I still feel it's too close to tell its lasting impact, but WP:RAPID aptly applies. PantheonRadiance (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How many riots with International coverage happen worldwide in a given year? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have merged both articles now, as they had basically the same content. I have no opinion on whether the page should be named "Kai Cenat Union Square giveaway" or "Kai Cenat riot" or "Kai Cenat Union Square riot" or something else, nor whether this page should even be kept or deleted. – Epicgenius (talk) 05:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that merge. I think that helps simplify things in the moment. —siro χ o 05:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems like an event with lasting long-term significance that, if not now, will almost certainly merit an article in the future. Rather than a "minor civil disturbance", it paralyzed a city. Furthermore, the article's incredibly quick AfD goes against WP:RAPID. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Per Ad Orientem among others.--Catlemur (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify. No fatalities, fleeting, no wider scope, and if we are honest no long-term impact. And for those who wish to cite WP:RAPID, I shall counter with WP:DELAY, which is woefully undercited in situations such as these. The compromise for those who cite RAPID should be to draftify, not simply keep the article up in full form. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article doesn't seem to have much going in its favour. Thankfully the 'riot', was not a serious one.--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is covered considerably by well known, reliable, and independent sources. EnbyPie08 (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To further prove my point, those news articles show that people offline DO care about the giveaway/raid, unlike something like, say Battle for Dream Island, which has little to no coverage outside YouTube videos and the Fandom wiki, thus making it not notable and unworthy of a Wikipedia article. EnbyPie08 (talk) 00:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Respectfully disagree with that topic meets WP:NOTNEWS. It's not original reporting, WP:ROUTINE news reports, who's who, or celebrity gossip. It also likely meets the WP:EVENT per "2. Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)." This topic has received widespread national and international coverage- so far, it has received coverage in The New York Times [50] [51] (two articles, which is about as WP:SUSTAINED as you can get for such a recent event), CBS [52], Reuters [53], The Guardian [54], USA Today[55], AP [56], CNN [57], NBC [58], among many others. Wikipedialuva (talk) 00:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disagree with the "Delete" Vote. Level 4 Response "Highest level of disaster response", multiple injuries, tens of arrests, public riot hitting international news on verified news sources. Large enough article where it would overpower the Kai Cenat page itself. Doobie777 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely enough sources here from non-industry outlets to at the very least meet WP:RAPID. It probably meets NEVENT as it stands, but if there somehow isn't sustained coverage of this, it can be merged to the parent article eventually. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect both to Kai Cenat per nom and Ad Orientem, and WP:10YT. For a somewhat analogous example, we have Peekskill riots as distinct from Paul Robeson for good reasons. Robeson's career was long and varied, as is his article. The riots (plural) were sustained events that had social and political implications, and fleshing out the details in the parent article would be out of scope and add unnecessary length. None of these considerations apply here, where there is no need for a WP:SPINOUT. There is plenty of room in the parent article to add this, probably the most significant event so far in this very young influencer's life. StonyBrook _babble 04:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@StonyBrook, Kai Cenat riot is no longer a standalone article, so what we're discussing is whether Kai Cenat Union Square giveaway is notable. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate, I am saying that the contents of Kai Cenat Union Square giveaway should be merged to a section within the parent, the title redirected there, and that Kai Cenat riot should also be redirected to that section. The episode (whatever we are calling it) is obviously notable enough to be included within another article but not as a standalone article. Thanks for all your efforts on NYC. StonyBrook _babble 15:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you mean now. Thanks for clarifying. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove ImSupaDash (talk) 09:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kai Cenat as per WP:LASTING. While multiple reliable sources have covered the incident itself, this event, contrary to typical riots that have their own article, doesn't have an encyclopedically significant purpose/cause and, let's be honest, won't have any longlasting effects that makes it significant enough to keep as its own article, if any longlasting effect at all (which it probably won't). B3251 (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Comment - This should not have been a standalone article when it was created (see No Hurry View One). Now that it has been, it's the poster child for the reverse, WP:RUSHDELETE. The worldwide attention to this is undeniable (if bewildering). If the nom had been delayed for a mere 48 hours, an AfD on this would never have been suggested and it would have been a merge discussion on Talk. Will that notability be sustained? Probably not, but I don't know and neither does anyone else. If the coverage vanishes, come back to the talk page in a month or two (not tomorrow) and RfC a merge. Until then, it's widely sourced, (currently) relevant and (currently) notable. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do get the delete arguments due to the lack of sustained coverage over a long period of time, but it would be a little silly to try and wait weeks or months to create any WP article on a recent event. We don't do that for any other topic, why do that for this? There is quite a lot of coverage for this event now (honestly I'm surprised by the level), who's to say it will continue or not continue with said coverage? I would say it loosely fits WP:NEVENT anyway, and there is no harm in keeping it. If it turns out to not have sustained coverage, we can merge it into the main article later. BTW, this article was definitely created too early, but as the coverage stands now, it deserves an article. ULPS (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just maybe give it a name change to something like 2023 Union Square riot. Rexxx7777 (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Been contemplating this for some time, and after checking Google News today and reading this discussion once more, I'm officially voting keep. I think many of the people voting delete or merge have missed the point on why others see the significance of this event. It isn't just about the deaths, injuries, arrests or destruction of property. Rather, it's emblematic of the societal impact of social media along with the dangers of parasocial relationships, and how this event is a consequence of these two ideas merging. A few hours ago this NPR piece was published that commented on how the riots reflected the influence of content creators on younger people, citing a researcher’s thoughts on the situation. The police and city officials also argued the same thing as shown in this AP News piece as well. It may still be a bit too soon to tell whether this will have a lasting impact, and we won't know if Cenat will get charged until after the 18th. However, if it does have a lasting impact, it stands as a cautionary tale on the disconnect between social media and reality, and what happens when people with unmitigated access to the internet seep into the real world. In that case, I'd say that it meets #1 of WP:NEVENT. PantheonRadiance (talk) 02:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stuff on here shouldn't get deleted unless its saved in an archive. Its like this place is full of the same kinds of people who used to burn libraries in the ancient world. 2604:2D80:6305:600:B1F6:D93D:46CC:6443 (talk) 06:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now, open AfD later if event isn't found to have lasting significance. The fact of the matter is: the people who are young and terminally online are overestimating its impact, while people who are more experienced and live in meatspace are underestimating it. We'll only find out which is the more accurate view in good time. 5.151.106.0 (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I skew younger than some on this site but far from Cenat's age group and I would not consider myself "terminally online", but the impact is what it is. I created the giveaway article after seeing the coverage in The New York Times, which signaled that this event was not just an instance of fans attending an event à la an average Taylor Swift concert, but a riotous event that tested the NYPD's response to a rapid mass gathering. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's been continuing coverage days after the event (see this morning's NYT), this triggered a code-4 NYPD response of which there have only been three this year (one for significant gun violence in the Bronx around the 4th of July, the other for the first arraignment of Donald Trump), numerous arrests were made, and Cenat himself has been criminally charged. It seems exceedingly likely local coverage of these proceedings will continue. U-dble (talk) 03:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per U-dble and PantheonRadiance. 🌶️Jala peño🌶️ Don't click this link! 10:59, 10 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!} 07:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World Logging Championship[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years, nothing on the page which would appear to count towards the WP:GNG. There appear to be various events with similar names, I have not found other sources which could be considered to show notability.

Also note: I wasn't sure if this should be considered a sport but could not think of a better delsort category. JMWt (talk) 08:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I’m pretty sure this is a hoax as the content is such nonsense. Mccapra (talk) 09:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sports. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Probably not a hoax, given the history of competitive lumberjacking. But this article is pretty unverifiable as it stands, and even if it turns out to meet GNG probably needs TNT. I'm willing to reevaluate if sources are presented. —siro χ o 12:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the current champion perfects his technique on the fifth floor of the library? Really?? Mccapra (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly ping @Mccapra, you may have replied in the wrong place here. —siro χ o 20:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: From a quick google search, this event does seem to exist, however there doesn't appear to be enough WP:SIGCOV to justify a standalone article here. User:Let'srun 13:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Let'srun. There are notable competitions, e.g. Lumberjack World Championship, Stihl Timbersports Series, with (currently) lousy sourcing (but other, more robust ones are out there), but I couldn't find any for this one. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:15, 6 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 Organizations of the Dune universe. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bene Tleilax[edit]

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

Unlike Bene Gesserit, the lesser known Tleilaxes are much less notable - in fact, I think they fail WP:GNG (hence this AfD). The article is a plot summary referenced to the novels; my BEFORE is not showing anything good to save this. While we could redirect this to Organizations of the Dune universe, it would be just pushing the problem a little down the line, as I doubt the Organizations... article is encyclopedic, either. Perhaps a better redirect would be to Heretics of Dune, the novel in which they play a major part. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Heretics of Dune. I could not find any reception for the group. I am surprised that articles like these stay around for so long. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I would be fine with a redirect to Organizations of the Dune universe, which recently survived AFD. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Organizations of the Dune universe, where a couple paragraphs will probably suffice. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Rhododendrites into Organizations of the Dune universe, but also List of technology in the Dune universe. Smaller entries for most of these topics already exist in those lists and link back here, which I'm happy to take care of.— TAnthony^Talk 18:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per TAnthony. I am neutral on the target, and whether to WP:PRESERVE elements that are given WP:DUE coverage in reliable sources. That can be determined after the redirect, through further editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I question a Redirect/Merge to Organizations of the Dune universe as that article has been nominated for AFD deletion as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete (or redirect to Heretics of Dune): The article's subject isn't really all that notable, but the article itself is fairly well-written and well-researched. —theMainLogan (t•c) 09:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, Organizations of the Dune universe has been Kept in its AFD discussion but we now have two different Redirect/Merge targets being suggested. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My plan is to split the article up, merging content from the Plot section into Organizations of the Dune universe#Bene Tleilax and the Technology section into List of technology in the Dune universe. I'm working on the character list merges at the moment but this one will be next.— TAnthony^Talk 14:31, 8 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!} 06:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Youssef Abdalla[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. His only achievement is that he competed in the 2017 World Aquatics Championships. There are also no Reliable Sources available about him. He did break a "Medley Relay National Record" in those games 1 but this does not make him notable. Charsaddian (talk) 07:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Egypt. Charsaddian (talk) 07:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE and looks like a case of WP:BLP1E. Not much to see here. IncompA 11:49, 5 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 Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Perdew Silas[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL as a public defender and failed judicial nominee. Coverage of the subject is mainly WP:ROUTINE mentions regarding her work as a public defender. I propose this article be redirected into Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. Let'srun (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem at all with this article being redirected.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Law, and Georgia (U.S. state). Let'srun (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. - Indefensible (talk) 03:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. We shouldn't try to do a redirect to a specific section there, though, as she appears in two. Suitskvarts (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:16, 11 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 11:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagirathi Mali[edit]

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

This article donot satisfy WP:GNG and can't exist as standalone article. It should be deleted and content should be merged under Mali caste. Even out of two source, one is not reliable as it appears to be WP: Primary or unreliable Indian scripture. Admantine123 (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture, Religion, and Hinduism. Admantine123 (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prob Delete - with the understanding that I do not have access to sources in relevant languages, I would say WP:TNT on the basis that there are significant issues with the style and content. If the subject is actually notable, any editor recreating the topic should/would need to be sure to show with acceptable sources that it is notable. JMWt (talk) 08:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kristi Hoss Schiller[edit]

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

Delete. Does not meet WP:N in any of the capacity described in the article. Sabih omar

Delete Per Sabih omar. --Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Texas. Kpg jhp jm 06:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article seems to have started as an autobiography from SPA having a grand total of 1 edit on Wikipedia. 128.252.212.40 (talk) 18:28, 10 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!} 04:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vikki Choudhry[edit]

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

There is nothing comprehensive about the person in any of the sources. The majority of the websites referenced here are unreliable and are of questionable quality. The article fails standards to meet WP:GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 04:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Thilsebatti (talk) 04:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. Promotional piece about someone with no claim of notability. Mccapra (talk) 06:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Karnataka ^talk 07:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, much of the apparent coverage in the provided sources are quotes from the subject or brief interview pieces, but none give me confidence in this person being notable or of notability being determined from other sources. There is a borderline promotional tone to the article, but I concur they appear to fail WP:GNG. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bordering on a Speedy Delete A7. I'm torn as to if ..played a pioneering role in launching the first MSO (Multi Service Operator) cable TV distribution company in India.. constitutes notability. It's certainly not enough for an article though. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - per Mccapra and This article is seem like WP:PROMO and he doesn't passes WP:NBIO and he not meets to WP:GNG.Kind regards --Âvîrâm7^(talk) 14:02, 9 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 Game Developers Conference. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jamil Moledina[edit]

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

Sources provide routine coverage but the subject is far from passing WP:GNG. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, and India. — Karnataka ^talk 07:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bridget (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable individual. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Game Developers Conference. Moledina is unfortunately not notable, while several reliable sources have covered him this coverage seems to be exclusively in the form of either WP:ROUTINE hiring announcements or interviews. However, his position at GDC was both senior and long-lasting enough to deserve coverage at that article which he does not have currently. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:27, 9 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 Adlai Stevenson III. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adlai Stevenson IV[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO, with the only significant coverage being the Pantagraph article. Previous AfD was 15 years ago. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Adlai Stevenson III where the subject is mentioned. Not notable enough for a stand alone bio. Mccapra (talk) 06:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Journalism, and United States of America. — Karnataka ^talk 07:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adlai Stevenson III's page. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I concur that this should be redirected to Adlai Stevenson III's wiki page. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 16:50, 5 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 Robin (character). I hope those advocating Delete are okay with an ATD but there are editors here who want to Merge some of this content into the main article so it still exists for them under the Redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of Robin[edit]

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

Another poorly referenced fan trivia. References are 90% comic books (primary fiction sources) and few mentions in passing in other sources. No cited source suggests this topic exists outside Wikipedia, its forks and perhaps (under a differnet name?) on some fan sites. The topic fails WP:GNG and/or WP:NLIST ("This page is a list of the alternative versions of Robin in comic books") and is nothing but a (poorly referenced) plot summary. At best, we can consider SOFTDELETE by redirecting this to Robin (character) (no objection to merging a bit of plot summary if anyone thinks it is relevant). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough here to justify a standalone article for this. Agree with nom in whole that this is completely WP:FANCRUFT, and even if this subject was notable enough for a standalone article, it would need a TNT. User:Let'srun 03:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and trim. This is a poorly executed WP:SS child of Robin (character), which means we can either 1) merge V content from here to there, because N is not an issue, or 2) Clean up this article and leave it here. Piotrus is categorically wrong on notability: the subject of this article is the same as Robin (character), which is a notable topic. Making a separate article to fully cover a topic due to SIZE issues doesn't affect notability. For actionable changes, this article should not list Robin variants covered in the parent article, and each entry should have primary or secondary sources--again, N is not at issue--to meet V for the facts stated, and secondary sources for opinions or conclusions. Jclemens (talk) 06:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- This is addressed at WP:AVOIDSPLIT: "Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Editors are cautioned not to immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic. In this case, editors are encouraged to work on further developing the parent article first, locating coverage that applies to both the main topic and the subtopic. Through this process, it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability, and thus can be split off into their own article." So I think notability absolutely is relevant, whether or not this is a "child" article. Josh Milburn (talk) 06:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IF as you say "the subject of this article is the same as Robin (character)" then the obvious policy is Wikipedia:Content forking. We don't need two articles on the same subject. This is just a bad subarticle - fanish plot summary of a part of the main article that has no stand-alone notability. Merge is the best we can do with such WP:FANCRUFT. And no, SUMMARY style split is not relevant here, b/c articles have to be notable. All we have here is plot summary, and that's non-encyclopedic trivia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per my conversation with Jclemens above. Josh Milburn (talk) 06:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like everyone above is agreed that this has significant overlap with another page - to the extent that the topics are interchangeable. No need to keep both, this title is not needed. JMWt (talk) 08:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There do not appear to be any non-primary sources on the topic of alternate Robins outside of listicles. Thus this is a failure of WP:LISTN and the WP:GNG. The few versions that may actually be notable enough for a bit of coverage can be done on the main Robin article, as is already the case. And, of course, complicating things further is the fact that all of different major versions of Robin (i.e. Tim Drake, Jason Todd, Tim Drake, etc) all have individual articles, each with their own "alternate versions" section which duplicates a lot of the information here, making this a unneeded content fork of multiple articles all at once. Redirecting to Robin (character)#Other versions seems to be about the best WP:ATD possible here, and I would not be terribly opposed if other editors would rather do this than Deletion, as well. Rorshacma (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think for most of these "Alternative versions" articles, where there isn't any reliable secondary coverage of the grouping, merge is the right solution, an WP:ATD both preserving history, and moving an appropriate amount of missing information into the main article. —siro χ o 01:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as WP:ATD. This is already covered at the main article. Otherwise fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG as an independent topic. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - On one hand, I really would like to Keep, because having this all on a single page is MUCH more convenient for our readers and provides a nice overview of the various variants. There's a good page to be had here. However, this should be laid out much more in line with summary style. This is, I'm sad to say, a convoluted mess. That said, I think it's fixable, and therefore saveable. So for now, I support turning this into a Redirect to Robin (character), which can easily be restored should this be cleaned up. If consensus is to delete, then merge whatever is salvageable/appropriate.- jc37 23:51, 6 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!} 02:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Evgenievich Udodov[edit]

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

The page does not meet the notability criteria for biographies. The page does not provide sufficient coverage from independent, reliable sources that address his life and career in depth. Many of the references seem to be related to business transactions or deals, rather than addressing Udodov himself and his significance. This could potentially violate Wikipedia's notability policy (WP:N). The article appears to lack neutral point of view (NPOV) with promotional tone in sections such as "Import substitution" and "Donations" which may violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. LusikSnusik (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. LusikSnusik (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTLINKEDIN. If sufficient sources are found still needs WP:TNT. —siro χ o 09:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on good faith - This appears to be a literal translation from Wikipedia Russia and Wikipedia Egyptian Arabic. — Maile (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. That person might be notable to some degree as a subject of investigation by Navalny and international sanctions, but otherwise does not seem very notable - based on sources currently provided on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nomination + the article is poorly written regardless
—theMainLogan (t•c) 09:02, 5 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.