Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 12	February 14 >

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. Star Mississippi 17:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Maltman[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. One primary ref here fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. There are references available but most of them are just passing mentions. Charsaddian (talk) 07:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Bilateral relations, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are no independent references with in-depth coverage, so this article fails WP:GNG.
Delete Lacking indepth coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There isn’t enough coverage by reliable secondary sources to qualify as notable per WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. Being an ambassador isn’t inherently notable. I’d expect to see more WP:SIGCOV to meet criteria. Shawn Teller (talk) 02:20, 20 February 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. Procedural Keep. Nomination by a block-evading sockmaster and no one has participated in the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl King (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Per WP:ONEOTHER. Onlk (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Onlk (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gunaajav Batjargal[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Sources here and from online searches appear to fail WP:GNG. N.B. I previously created this stub using another handle which was blocked due to an issue with the username which I have already disclosed on my talk page. Uhooep (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Mongolia, and Austria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 07:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no evidence of notability Almeida Fernando (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Piper Rockelle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject has only received in-depth coverage from reliable sources in connection with allegations of wrongdoing against her mother. (Coverage in the Los Angeles Times, Atavist magazine.) The article currently contains personal information based on low-quality or promotional sources. Since the subject is a minor, I suggest deleting this article, without prejudice to the creation of a different article about her mother or her mother's production company. gnu 57 22:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Internet. gnu 57 22:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable, although urgent improvements are needed in the article with regards to poorly cited unproven allegations of criminal activity

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2022-12-18/piper-rockelle-youtube-child-labor-lawsuit
https://www.latimes.com/podcasts/story/2023-02-08/the-times-podcast-youtube-lawsuit-piper-rockelle
https://longreads.com/2023/02/07/the-squad-youtube-kidfluencers-atavist-magazine/
https://madame.lefigaro.fr/societe/actu/la-mere-de-la-youtubeuse-star-piper-rockelle-accusee-d-exploitation-et-d-abus-sexuels-sur-mineurs-aux-usa-20230119

CT55555(talk) 00:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CT55555: Those references centre on the mother's recent controversies. I don't think the daughter is independently notable. (Also, WP:AVOIDVICTIM might apply here.) gnu 57 03:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think they contain enough significant coverage about Piper Rockelle. CT55555(talk) 04:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Georgia (U.S. state). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nominator on the matter of criminal allegations and the fact that the subject is a minor. I also noticed that the Los Angeles Times and Atavist articles are near-copies of each other. Her article says that she starred in Mani (web series) but she was only a supporting player, and it says that she starred in Chicken Girls but she is not mentioned at that show's article. Otherwise she is in the news indirectly due to the criminal allegations, but the allegations have been made by different actors and they are against a different person (her mother), so the connection is tangential at best despite appearances of her name in the news. Outside of that debacle, Piper herself is only visible in the usual promotional and social media sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I made a WP:BLP-based edit to remove content from the article, which also appeared to be a WP:COATRACK. I searched for more sources online, and significant coverage in reliable sources seems focused on allegations related to her mother, not Rockelle, as well as the lawsuits (they are counter-suing), which seems relevant per WP:INVALIDBIO, WP:VICTIM, and WP:BLPCRIME. I also agree with Doomsdayer520's assessment above, and I found some tabloid/sensationalist coverage (e.g. WP:TMZ and related churnalism). There does not appear to be significant support for notability in independent and reliable sources to support a WP:BLP article. Beccaynr (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given the potential to change the landscape and the amount of coverage it has received, an article could be written about the lawsuit once it's all settled, and Rockelle makes sense to discuss therein, but she does not appear notable as an actor right now. Star Mississippi 17:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abubakarr Multi-Kamara[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Sources here and from online searches appear to fail WP:GNG. N.B. I previously created this stub using another handle which was blocked due to an issue with the username which I have already disclosed on my talk page. Uhooep (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Africa, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant in-depth coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 16:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no evidence of notability Almeida Fernando (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emad Houache[edit]

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

Article about former soccer player which fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Houache only made a couple of appearances in the USL Championship before his career ended, and there is no significant coverage available in reliable sources. The dzfoot.com interview linked on the article is the best available, and it has essentially zero independent prose about Houache. Nothing I can find looks in-depth. Jogurney (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:16, 16 February 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 Characters in the Mario franchise. However, if someone wants to do the move proposed by @LaundryPizza03: first, that's a matter of editorial discretion Star Mississippi 17:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boo (character)[edit]

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

While I'm kinda shocked the article on Boos is this poorly referenced, the reception is entirely cited to listicles and content farm type spam articles. If people want more minute detail on Boos, the Mario Wiki has way more of that. However, as it is, this article fails WP:GNG and uses mainly trivial or primary sources. Characters in the Mario franchise is a good potential merge target. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Zxcvbnm Andre🚐 22:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge generally in-depth coverage of fictional subjects with little notability outside of their franchise or discussion beyond get covered on the respective wikis. WesSirius (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above; if someone wants to recreate this with better sourcing then they easily can per WP:PRESERVE. Dronebogus (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 08:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As per the nomination. Charsaddian (talk) 09:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no actual deletion rationale was provided for the OP's AfD nomination, but I support the notion to merge some of the article's contents into the relevant entry for Characters in the Mario franchise. Haleth (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could vote rescue. This could be notable, but someone needs to add some good sources. For now, I guess the merge's have it... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since there is more than one character named Boo, this page should be moved to Boo (Mario) before closing this AfD, and the current title redirected to Boo#Fictional_characters as WP:INCOMPDAB. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. While the subject doesn’t quite satisfy WP:GNG criteria for a standalone article, there is a strong case for merging per WP:PRESERVE. Shawn Teller (talk) 02:36, 20 February 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 Characters in the Mario franchise. Star Mississippi 18:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lakitu[edit]

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

Fails the WP:SIGCOV criteria of WP:GNG, with its reception entirely trivial coverage and cherry-picked sentences, a textbook example of ref bombing with a great deal of text but signifying nothing. Things like "1UP.com described Lakitu as a "series mainstay"" and "UGO Networks editor Chris Littler listed having to be rescued by Lakitu after falling off the track in Super Mario Kart as one of the top 50 worst ways to die in a video game" are just fluff. There's no reason the character can't be merged into Characters in the Mario franchise. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Zxcvbnm Andre🚐 22:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I didn’t even remember this guy had a name. We are not Mario Wiki, and we don’t need individual articles on literally every Mario character because they’ve been mentioned half a dozen times in listicles. Dronebogus (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Zxcvbnm. All of the sources are just content farms or non-significant coverage. Carpimaps (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 08:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the listicles fail WP:SIGCOV. At best, they show that a merged article about all the characters would be notable, while individual character articles are not. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While the OP has not provided an actual deletion rationale for his AfD nomination, I do support the notion to merge some of the article's contents into the relevant entry for Characters in the Mario franchise. Haleth (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge due to lack of significant coverage in my research. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 21:55, 18 February 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 Characters in the Mario franchise. Star Mississippi 18:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hammer Bro[edit]

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

Reception for the Hammer Bro's is absolutely terrible and sourced mainly to listicles. I don't believe there's a single reference in the article that is WP:SIGCOV. There's no reason they cannot be merged into Characters in the Mario franchise. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Mostly an unsourced listing of game appearance and a reception section of the most mundane passing-mention coverage imaginable. Current coverage doesn't come close to meeting the GNG, nor would one expect to find much out there, as it's just a run of the mill minor game character. Sergecross73 msg me 21:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Zxcvbnm Andre🚐 22:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Wikipedia is not a directory of minor video game enemies. Dronebogus (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 08:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge many of these minor enemies are sourced to the same brief listicles. Treating them in the same Wikipedia article would do a better job following the sources, instead of splitting and stretching them with unsourced information. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some of the article's contents into the relevant entry for Characters in the Mario franchise. Since a clear-cut solution, an appropriate merge target, was actually provided instead of a deletion rationale, not sure why the OP insists that it has to go to AfD in lieu of a bold merge or merge discussion. Haleth (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Don't we have lower hanging fruit to deal with? I mean, this is stretching notability, but there are some meh-so-so sources that are in theory INDEPTH... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a minor NPC character who's entire concept is easily summarized as "Turtle that throws hammers." This is about as low hanging as it gets... Sergecross73 msg me 01:48, 19 February 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. Star Mississippi 19:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shivajinagar Station–Swargate Skywalk[edit]

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

This project never took off and as a resident of the city, I can assure you that this skywalk doesn't exist. Moreover, there is no coverage apart from the sources mentioned in the article. DesiBoy101 (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. DesiBoy101 (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but maybe add a mention of this now-cancelled project on the main Pune article. BhamBoi (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a botched plan with little coverage, written in a promotional tone. I would not not add it to the article of the entire city. IF it needs mentioning at all, Shivajinagar railway station#Expansion would be the place. gidonb (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Star Mississippi 19:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanak (2023 film)[edit]

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

This article about a yet to be released film, has been moved back and forth to draft in several instances and has been moved to main yet again despite requests to complete the review process and advice that it is TOOSOON. The only source added since the most recent discussions seems to be mainly about a producer with not much coverage of the film itself. 'Naive' search did not reveal much additional information. Alternative would be to return to draft *again* but to avoid move-warring a discussion is now warranted. Eagleash (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is not to prove to someone. it is related to a film which has strong source links and references and that’s enough to make this article to stay on main wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmpwork (talk • contribs) 18:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or return to Draft until release. Fails WP:NFF DonaldD23 talk to me 20:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails per WP:NFF, as the topic is WP:TOOSOON and the creator refused it into the draft several times. References are primary and unreliable (although few of them are reliable with QNA type news). Creator seems to be connected to the subject if you take a look on Music section as nothing at all about film's music in any kind of sources. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Notable~~ M.Ashraf333 stop getting into personal edit war as i have monitored this harassment from you from my last several articles,and you seems highly confused where you are telling few of them are reliable but still wants to get it delete where it shows your personal adgenda of letting Pakistani films and bios to nominate for deletion. the sources are enough for this article to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmpwork (talk • contribs) 06:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Striking duplicate !vote. --Randykitty (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rmpwork، I will only respond to your half of the comment and not discuss personal attacks. If I have talked about reliable sources, I have also written that it is Q&A interview type material which is not acceptable under any circumstances. Let the rest of the community decide. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Go and have a clear look, they are not at all QnA they are a complete news links. please maintain your facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmpwork (talk • contribs) 11:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources on the article. NYC Guru (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it does not meet WP:GNG. Draftification would be okay as well, since it might meet the criteria at some point.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as an WP:ATD or Delete. Most of the sources appear to be non-reliable, with insufficient editorial policies. Moreover, the reliable sources appear to fail WP:SIGCOV. E.g., this piece from Daily Pakistan is a routine announcement that focuses upon the plot and cast; this piece from Tribune is primarily dependent on quotes by Shyraa Roy instead of independent direct commentary on the film. Similarly, my WP:BEFORE search could not find sources that are independent, reliable, secondary, and non-trivial/constitute of significant coverage to demonstrate a passing of WP:GNG or WP:NFILM criteria 1. Therefore, IMHO, this upcoming film's production has not been demonstrated to be notable per WP:NFF, but draftification is a viable WP:ATD as upon its release in May, reviews might contribute to notability. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think some sources are salvageable (The Express Tribune interview is one such example) and may be sufficient to warrant notability, although sources need to be reviewed to remove routine coverage; if not, then draftification is the next logical choice, but deletion seems excessive imho Ppt91 (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until release. Fails WP:NFF. Insight 3 (talk) 05:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify until the film is released because it currently fails WP:NFF. I do not support full-on deletion. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:57, 14 February 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 List of Lahore Qalandars cricketers. Consensus reached on redirecting. (non-admin closure) Timothytyy (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mirza Tahir Baig[edit]

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

PROD removed. It would appear the article creator isn't aware of what constitutes an official Twenty20 match. This player may have played in a 20-over match, but that is not the same as a Twenty20 match (see here). That point aside, lacks coverage and an ATD redirect is inappropriate as we don't list players who haven't appeared in matches of status. StickyWicket (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cricket. StickyWicket (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The player made his official Twenty20 debut today, so an ATD would be to redirect him to List of Lahore Qalandars cricketers until he plays more matches and more coverage is generated on him. StickyWicket (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Lahore Qalandars cricketers Looks to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. There isn't enough GNG coverage that I can see to warrant an article, although more may exist in the future. A clear WP:ATD now exists though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the team list per RugbyFan22 - clearly too soon unless there's a tonne of coverage in non-English language sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Hamza Ali Shah ^Talk 16:23, 19 February 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. Consensus is keep by strength of arguments. Nomination is a WP:VAGUEWAVE. Regarding the delete !vote, sources do not have to be in English to establish notability. Therefore what is left are the keep arguments. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tor Torkildsen[edit]

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Norway. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This is an utterly hopeless nomination. Notability shown with multiple instances of independent in-depth significant coverage, direct support of hundreds of thousands of sold books, etc. Geschichte (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WJ94 (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I understand Geschichte's argument but we don't have sources to back it up. I looked at the two Norwegian pages and they also lack sufficient sourcing. From what I can tell, this is an author who has not been translated into English so English language sources will not be available. I would think that there would be sufficient sources in Norwegian, but those pages don't help. Without adequate sourcing this cannot be kept. Lamona (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why do the provided sources not back it up? Can you name a single fact in the article body which is currently unsupported?

Note that I'm disregarding the other Wikipedia versions here. Geschichte (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The .no article is unsourced, so that isn't much help. The Dagbladet is behind a paywall so I can't get the full article translated. The Byavisa articles (I searched in each of these) seems to be mainly name-checks. The Adressa page will not translate beyond the first sentence. I can ASSUME GOOD FAITH but I still do not see what this contributes to .en wikipedia. Even one source in English would turn this around for me. I know that non-English sources are allowed, but to be sure sources in English are preferred. I don't find any. Lamona (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should add, to save others time, that I did a search in Ebsco and in G-Scholar and got nothing in either. Lamona (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Writer with significant sales numbers, and sources have been added. I can't access them, but if Geschichte says they are good enough I trust that – I also wouldn't be able to easily check a print source, for example, and of course we write about things where all or most sources are printed material. And we don't require sources to be in English. /Julle (talk) 23:00, 19 February 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. But if you want to actively work on it, @BeanieFan11:, I'm happy to provide it as a Draft. Star Mississippi 02:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Broussard[edit]

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

While accomplished, does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS. Was redirected as per recent AfDs for Daniel Tioumentsev and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophia Baram. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Luxembourg, and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: The biggest ding for this page is that WP:NHSPHSATH indicates "High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage," but I could be persuaded to keep because the basic guidelines on WP:NSPORT note "sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject" and the referenced KING 5 piece certainly meets that in my opinion. Here, I think WP:NHSPHSATH outweighs the basic guidelines of WP:NSPORT. I think, assuming Broussard chooses to continue his atheletic career, he will become notable enough for an article but is not currently and we should not keep articles in place based on speculation about an individual's future.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion due to previous PROD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This should at least be draftified. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:48, 19 February 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 redirect to Wikt:contrarian. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contrarian[edit]

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

WP:NOTDICT - Little to no substance in the article, single source focuses on word definition Skipple ☎ 15:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two-sentence stub that has little room for expansion. Partofthemachine (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to wikt:contrarian since it is a dictionary definition. Carpimaps (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: textbook dictionary definition, unclear how it could possibly be expanded beyond that. Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to to wikt:contrarian, per Carpimaps and WP:NOTDICT.Sal2100 (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For what it is now, only a dictionary definition. Neocorelight (Talk) 14:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to wiktonary per WP:DICTDEF NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 02:21, 20 February 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!} 15:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Index of ufology articles[edit]

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

Barely populated outline (just 14 articles), last edited half a year ago. Cambalachero (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categorify, nothing better in having this as an article over just a category. BhamBoi (talk) 07:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Category:Ufology and subcategories. Cambalachero (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant with category "Ufology". Lamona (talk) 03:25, 17 February 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. Consensus reached on GNG. (non-admin closure) Timothytyy (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Song Jin-kyu[edit]

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

My WP:BEFORE search did not uncover any evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG. (I may have missed sources not in English.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources below which show notability. Giant Snowman 22:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @GiantSnowman:, I found [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8] among many more Korean sources. Young player with ongoing career and 45+ appearances in the fully pro Korean top flight and second tier. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, Das osmnezz but I wasn't quite convinced to withdraw the AfD as I feel that most of these have insufficent depth of coverage to count towards meeting GNG, so failing the "multiple sources" requirement. 1 appears to be a blog - is there a reason to accept it as a suitable source? 2 is just comments after a match and the player saying he had been injured for two months. 3 is closer to meeting the criteria for supporting GNG but not quite there, IMO. 4 is fairly routine post-match coverage. 5 just reprints comments made in an interview. 6 is passing coverage. 7 does contribute to meeting GNG, IMO. 8 is very brief. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BennyOnTheLoose, I would consider #7 to be routine transactional coverage (signings, departures, injuries, etc.) which does not contribute to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose:, Besides the many sources above, I also found [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], and [16] among many more Korean sources. Young player with ongoing career and 45+ appearances in the fully pro Korean top flight and second tier. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, perhaps? I feel like it would be a good compromise, as we could work more freely to rate @Das osmnezz:'s sources and expand the article. By the way, I've just added the infobox and a few more basic details, so the page isn't reduced to a bare couple of sentences, anymore. Oltrepier (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources by Das osmnezz.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG with sources above.--Ortizesp (talk) 09:20, 20 February 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. This does not preclude a possible merger, which if desired can be discussed on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Louisa (1798 ship)[edit]

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

Redirect to Louisa (ship) was reverted, and article creator prefers AfD discussion over simple redirection.

Lacks notability, sources are primary, databases, or passing mentions. The few lines in "History of the Liverpool Privateers" by Williams are the most substantial source we have, which isn't sufficient to support a stand-alone article. Behrendt has nothing about Louisa, and Inikori is a very passing mention. It's just one of the thousands of slave ships in the slave ship database. Fram (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, and England. Fram (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The refs offer WP:SIGCOV. Desertarun (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to elaborate? I made some effort to actually look at and discuss the sources individually. Fram (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm sorry, i see this as another in a series of AFDs that is appearing to be false or inappropriate in other ways. There's no actual intent to completely delete the article, is there? Rather the intent is to cause a merger, or at worst a redirect without moving over any material? Then this is not for AFD. And the deletion nominator has been schooled recently in other AFDs they opened or participated in about various lists of ships. "Article creator prefers AFD discussion over simple redirection" is not, i think, how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Talk page shows no discussion, no complaint or request about anything. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. AFD is not for running roughshod. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 21:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC) The same applies at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine (1793 ship), i suppose anyone considering this AFD should please consider that one also. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 21:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed redirects are supposed to be discussed at AfD. Before you try to school people about AfD, perhaps try to know such things. My intent is not to cause a merger, a redirect at most is more than sufficient and a straight deletion wouldn´t be a problem either. So please dtop the misplaced concerns about whether this should be at AfD, and perhaps answer the question about this specific AfD instead? Fram (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I do think this should not be at AFD. If normal processes were followed for a wp:MERGE and it was decided by editors that a merge was appropriate, there is no way the article would be merely redirected, dismissing all information and all sources in the article. This should not be at AFD. Maybe there are some kinds of "disputed redirects" which are appropriate for AFD, as when there is trolling or otherwise obviously no information at a given article.

This and some other ships-related AFDs are coming across to me as bullying-like, vaguely against ships or ships editors or I don't know what exactly. Or maybe in these AFDs the deletion nominator was not initially in that mode, but for some reason turns on participating editors. Bullying happens to be what I comment about most on my own userpage. This doesn't exactly perfectly fit with most standard definitions, but I am not comfortable with this going on in Wikipedia now. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 20:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am not sure, but I think it is possible other AFD editors, including at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine (1793 ship), are choosing not to !vote or comment here due to incivility going on. Who needs it. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 05:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not a vote. That’s complaining about WP:OTHERSTUFF Dronebogus (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The mention of the profitability of the 4th voyage is significant in its impact. I have tried to clarify the importance, with a cite to a substantial secondary source. The exaggerated profitability of this and five voyages by other vessels was important in skewing understanding of the enslaving trade. In addition to adding this what I hope is a clarification, I have added other background. I realize although this background does not rise to the level of significant coverage of the vessel herself, it does provide further context to vessel and the trade, and is consistent with WP's policy favoring providing such information. Acad Ronin (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- What policy would that be? Which policy favours keeping non-notable subjects as a place to post more general information about a larger subject, instead of, you know, posting that info at a dedicated article about that larger subject? If some of this is necessary background to understand the slave trade, then it should be added to the article about the slave trade, or a sub-article about some specific topic, e.g. the profitability of the slave trade. Fram (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  There is nothing that prevents you from adding the info to articles on enslaving. In fact, please do. But doing so does not preclude adding the info here too. I don't know how someone comes to an article, abstract curiosity, seeking a specific answer, or..., and I don't know where they will go next. Adding background may not be necessary to understanding enslaving, but the purpose of an article is not just to answer the specific question, or at least that is what I believe, having perhaps spent too many years as an educator. Acad Ronin (talk) 11:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be coverage in Williams (1897), which is twice cited in the article. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The detail in this case is important to the broader understanding of the economics of the trade, as it was chosen by Williams due to its rarity as an exemplar. At present, with five completed voyages it presents also a more notable career than some of the others that have been considered recently. At the very least, the substantive material here should retained by an appropriate merge (I cannot agree with the OP that everything here is so worthless that nothing short of full deletion would be appropriate). When an article comes to be written on the economics of slave trading or shipping per se, probably as a spin-off from the already quite lengthy Atlantic slave trade, there may then be a more suitable target than causing too much imbalance in List of slave ships, even if that article is forked as suggested at WP: Articles for deletion/Catherine (1793 ship). Davidships (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Louisa (1798 ship) is a well-developed article on, as the title implies, a historical topic. The article relies both on primary and secondary sources. The brief description of all its six journeys sets a great standard (and high bar!) for other such articles. Wikipedia suffers from a major recentism problem -- many editors want to write about something that just happened or a contemporary person, company, product, service, etc they know something about -- and deleting this article would not improve this unfortunate situation. In recent decades, there has been an increased interest in the slave trade, for which this ship has been used. The sources from the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries also speak to a sustained interest (for any reason) in the Louisa (1798 ship) and similar vessels. Thank you, Acad Ronin for creating, expanding, and referencing this article! gidonb (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination by a block-evading editor and no one has weighed in here yet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Chauhan[edit]

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

~~Non-notable investor or Entrepreneur. Misterrrrr (talk) 10:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)~~ - WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Beccaynr (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Asia, and United Arab Emirates. Misterrrrr (talk) 10:48, 13 February 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. Consensus reached. (non-admin closure) Timothytyy (talk) 12:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzie Freeman[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability, a very short entry on Behind the Voice Actors (kind of an IMDb for voice actors: while reliable, it doesn't add to notability, per WP/RSP) and otherwise only passing mentions: it looks as if no reliable sources have given significant attention to her. Fram (talk) 10:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Oklahoma. Fram (talk) 10:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As I mentioned when I removed the PROD, she meets criterion #1 of WP:NACTOR as having multiple main roles in notable works. In some of these, such as Lycoris Recoil, Rent-A-Girlfriend, and Magical Sempai, she voices the the protagonist or main female lead. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded. With enough work, Freeman's article can look respectable. Leader Vladimir (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- In the English translations, for which she barely received any attention. Hardly indicative of being a significant role (as described in NACTOR) if e.g. for Lycoris Recoil, this is the source, and not much better can be found. Fram (talk) 10:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough coverage in third-party sources. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Such as...? Fram (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with other editors that there's probably enough coverage here and the person probably meets notability guidelines. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:39, 17 February 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. Withdrawn by nom and no "delete" !votes. Randykitty (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hard-Off[edit]

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

Heavily reliant on unreliable sources. What is maybe reliable may just barely get this to scrape by but I'm not 100% sure either way. The Ultimate Guitar review should be good per WP:RSMUSIC (note the UG Staff byline) and the Punknews.org review should be as well. I couldn't tell with Laut.de or Heavy Pop, and the Grim Tower is blatantly a blog (note here where all the music reviews are by the same author). The only other potentially reliable source I've seen is from Mondo Sonoro. Other than that, this is basically all social media posts and the album's liner notes, and based on just the size of the article I suspect there may be some unsourced material in there as well. This could all be a complete nothing and me being overly stringent in applying GNG, but it doesn't hurt to ask for a second opinion just in case. It could just as easily be a late era self-release from a once-prominent act which doesn't necessarily guarantee notability. QuietHere (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Pennsylvania. QuietHere (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does [17] from KRUI-FM tip it over the WP:NALBUM threshold? (I'm also not sure.) Jfire (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to say. It's maybe notable as a radio station (I don't know the notability standards for those) but that doesn't necessarily mean notability as a music publication. QuietHere (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NALBUM. Sources in the article, except YouTube, are reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs cleanup, not deletion. It's a late album by a band whose glory days were then behind them, and it got less notice than its predecessors, so perhaps someone tried to beef up the article with a pile of Twitter feeds. That junk can and should be removed. But there are a few useful reviews, especially from PunkNews and Heavy Pop. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just gonna withdraw this one. There are two keep votes already and I already thought it could be just on the line so I don't see the harm in it staying. Does need cleanup regarding the number of unreliable sources in there but that's another matter. QuietHere (talk) 14:41, 13 February 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. (non-admin closure) Timothytyy (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Kuzmich[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Indiana. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note to editors actually this is the third nomination of this article. The second nomination it was grouped with other articles. Catfurball (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the NYTimes and the People articles are enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not sure why there is so little engagement here, but reading the first AfD, there were quite a few articles in national media that profiled her. Whilst it was several years back, current policy is that notability endures WP:NTEMP so there seems to me to be little policy based reasoning to !delete (unless there is some other WP:BLP reason that hasn't been mentioned here). JMWt (talk) 10:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources. Going to need more info from the nominator as to why these fail to meet WP:GNG. Garuda3 (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She doesn't seem to be notable outside of appearing in one season of a reality show. She received some coverage but almost all of it is related to her participation in a season of America's Next Top Model, and every contestant on the show probably received some media coverage. This could be considered routine coverage. I'm not sure this is enough to justify giving her a Wikipedia article, as it seems most reality show participants do not have their own article unless they achieved further fame elsewhere. JMB1980 (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A quick look at sources reveals the subject hasn't seen any significant coverage since December 2007. The page has been tagged for improvement for seven years, with virtually no coverage for the last fourteen years. While this is a human being who had a part on a tv show for one season, the sources don't pass EFFECT, PERSISTANCE, GEOSCOPE, DIVERSE or INDEPTH (NEVENT criteria, I'll grant). The AfD was held at the height of the subject's few minutes of fame. If this subject was a geographic feature or a species of flora, keep assertors would be correct; two or three reliable sources do directly detail the subject (in December 2007). But this is a BLP. As wikipedians we should do a living subject no harm, and a biography of a living individual dated over 14 years ago which cannot be updated represents neither the subject nor Wikipedia honorably. If not deleted, this should be redirected to the appropriate show season. BusterD (talk) 12:56, 20 February 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. This article has undergone a lot of changes since it was originally nominated last month and it looks like the sources added might address the nominator's concerns. I see support for Keeping this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe Rubini[edit]

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

No sourcing found, I don't believe winning a national piano competition at 14 is enough for GNG. Perhaps in the future, but there isn't enough here at this time for the article to be kept. Oaktree b (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Con un chequeo de las referencias aportadas o un pedido de Ampliación de referencias o fuentes era suficiente para corroborar que él biografiado Ganó el Concurso Nacional de Piano de su país. El biografiado según distintas referencias, sin importar la edad tiene merito y cumple con los criterios de Wikipedia como pianista y compositor ganó el premio de Uruguay en 2021. Participó de programas televisivos en Argentina y Uruguay, tocó con músicos destacados y en los más importantes teatros y locaciones de su país, gracias por leer esto.

With a check of the references provided or a request for Expansion of references or sources, it was enough to corroborate that the biography won the National Piano Competition of his country. The biography according to different references, regardless of age, has merit and meets the Wikipedia criteria as a pianist and composer, he won the Uruguay award in 2021. He participated in television programs in Argentina and Uruguay, played with prominent musicians and in the most important theaters and locations in his country: 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. Thanks for reading this.

Marinna (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Uruguay. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I haven't seen a comment on enwiki that isn't in English before (and not clear why anyone would do that) but there appear to me to be enough RS to meet the GNG requirements. JMWt (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with JMWt, the existing sources establish WP:GNG notability. CT55555(talk) 14:02, 13 February 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 12:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Dew (diplomat)[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Routine coverage here fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, United Kingdom, Colombia, and Cuba. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This one is particularly CV-like. Distinguished career, but the sources appear to be routine coverage.JohnmgKing (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 3 of the 4 sources are primary. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO and most of the sources are primary. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 16:04, 15 February 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 12:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Clouder[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Routine coverage here fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 09:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Bilateral relations, United Kingdom, and Chile. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree that this diplomat has not received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. --Bedivere (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only routine coverage not indepth. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:05, 16 February 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. Clear consensus this is non-notable, and it seems like an unlikely search term. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Otsego County high point[edit]

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

An unnamed place without reliable sources or even exact measurements? No notability. Fram (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and New York. Fram (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Deprodded by Doncram (talk · contribs) without explanation or improvement. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, part of a WP:HOUNDing spree which also included e.g. the deprodding of the article now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Life: Meaning, Purpose & Death. Fram (talk) 10:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I object to User:Fram's tone and statements which are personally-directed and seem, to me, abusive or on the edge of that. Personal animus should not be part of AFD process. These remarks by Fram are shortly after I did object to their nominations in a series of AFDs they opened, and I opposed in those AFDs, and I believe all of them have been closed "Keep". The tone of the remarks here and elsewhere, plus these facts, seem to me to suggest their tone here is in retaliation, and higher-level action in response to Fram could be appropriate. I won't right now open some higher level proceeding.

However, I do think it is fair to register here that I consider Fram's remarks to be unnecessarily mean in tone, and consistent with being retaliatory, and likely having intent to rouse up others with anger or derisive tone also. Seeing the following series of seven "Delete" votes, I think Fram may have succeeded in setting a prevailing tone here that got everyone so far to act in a piling on way instead of considering policy and guidelines which to me are obvious. Turning back to content of this AFD, please see my !vote for "Redirect" below. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 00:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to raise this at Ani. Just make sure you have the facts straight there, unlike here. Fram (talk) 06:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Laughable article, there's thousands of pretty flat counties whose locations of highest elevations are entirely unremarkable and obviously unnamed and undeserving of standalone articles. Absolutely no basis for the prod removal. Reywas92^Talk 15:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's on a list of 62 highest places but has no official name? Non-notable. I don't see any sourcing for this un-named place either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't even have a name, let alone any good sources. WP:GEOLAND says that "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist", but it's not named and there is no information beyond statistics and coordinates. At best this is one sentence in Otsego County, New York#Geography. Hut 8.5 18:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree that this is comically and uncontroversially bad and not even worthy of an AfD. Are we going to start making articles on the largest unnamed rocks in various US counties next? Dronebogus (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above comments; there is no notability or good sources. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the above comments. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it doesn't even come close to meeting our notability guidelines. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Otsego county's row in List of New York county high points. This simply should not be at AFD. An obvious good alternative to deletion is to merge or redirect this to the list-article which includes it, List of New York county high points.

How obvious is the existence of that list-article? I found it easily at the time when I removed the PROD, likely by my checking "what links here". Just now, though, I could not find it in "what links here", and figured out that the list article was changed by this edit delinking it at 15:25, 13 February 2023‎, by User:Reywas92 at the time of their "Delete" vote above, the second of seven. So the existence of the list-article was obvious to at least them, and perhaps it was obvious for the first delete voter, but it might not have been as obvious for later voters to find. I just now restored the link from the list-article. Reywas92, IMHO your removing that during this AFD was not helpful, one reason being that it sort of seems like trying to undermine the page as if to "win" the AFD. To everyone else, please reconsider whatever you might have thought about my removal of the PROD when you did not have this information. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 00:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current Otsego article links to the NY list, so yes the existence of that was obvious, no need for "what links here". If one were to search "Otsego County high point", the main list comes up right away, and I do not think a redirect for a descriptor of an unnamed place is actually necessary. My delinking of that list undermines nothing, and I've re-delinked the pointless red links that are unnamed hills that should not be articles. Reywas92^Talk 04:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. The place is unnamed, and it's more likely to be found than searched for, anyway, so there's no reason why this of all titles should be redirected to the list. Avilich (talk) 05:22, 20 February 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For ease of reference, I would note this was speedy-deleted per CSD:G7 (author requested deletion. Stifle (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cookie's Bustle[edit]

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

This game fails WP:GNG, it has only one HG101 article about it as a reliable source and that's it. Said article isn't even included on the page here, so clearly its creator wasn't concerned whether the game was notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I put a CSD tag on the article, my fault that i didn't realize its not notable enough. Lambda-edits-things (talk) 08:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambda-edits-things: In the future I would aim to gather at least 3 reliable sources before starting an article. You can always go through articles for creation if you are unsure whether it will be suitable. Just wanted to give some tips so it isn't just entirely biting the newcomers. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:47, 13 February 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!} 04:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Reighard[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and Ohio. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of significant coverage. Bondegezou (talk) 10:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was included in a bundled nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiara Belen so I don't think a Soft Deletion is an option any longer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage found about her as a person, some mentions after she was eliminated. Nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Aptowitzer[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable lawyer. A WP:BEFORE search only returned a few press releases or quotes in news articles, with nothing that appears to be WP:SIGCOV, thus WP:GNG does not appear to be met. Curbon7 (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, Judaism, and Canada. Curbon7 (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Incredibly parochial Canadian tumbleweed. No evidence of WP:SUSTAINED. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:36, 13 February 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, per G5. This article was created as a draft by the sock of a blocked spammer, accepted at AfC by another sock of the same spammer, then edited by a third sock - who looks like a different spammer. The only non-socky edit was to nominate it for deletion. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Sen (advocate)[edit]

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

No RESUMES please. RPSkokie (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. RPSkokie (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we have 24 subcategories in the category:Lawyers, and >1,300 bios of US lawyers alone, all of which look pretty much like this - a career summary with sources supporting major cases they’ve argued. What is it about this one that the nominator feels is inconsistent with the others we host? Mccapra (talk) 08:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra Not aware of others' but my nomination is based on plain vanilla observation. This article does not cite any sources that discuss the biographical particulars of the individual. RPSkokie (talk) 09:36, 13 February 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!} 04:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dhoop Chhaon (2022 film)[edit]

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

The article was created by user with a name that suggests COI, or PR firm.

There are no legitimate full reviews of this film. Reviews/sources used in the article are press releases, and possible paid articles.

This business standard has a disclaimer at the bottom This story is provided by PNN. ANI will not be responsible in any way for the content of this article. (ANI/PNN) (This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

The times of India article was also written by PNN. They did not provide any other disclaimer, but TOI should not be used to establish notability per WP:TOI, and other discussions.

Lokmat Times article also has disclaimer.

The NDTV article is more of a general coverage than a "full length review". This one gives me doubt of paid article.

The article creator also re-created the Ashish Dixit, that article has a socking history. It is likely this film article was created to give some wight to Dixit's article.

In any case, this film does not pass notability guidelines for films as there are no full length reviews, and it also fails general notability guidelines because of lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:SALT. We have never been a free web host, but in 2023, everyone knows this. Such an egregious use of our private charity has to be singled out. Bearian (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, deletion contested on the article talk page so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt please, nothing reliable found about the film, what's above for sourcing isn't useful. Oaktree b (talk) 16:04, 13 February 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Love Humiliates[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. Tagged for notability DonaldD23 talk to me 16:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Egypt. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — WP:NFILM states
The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career.
(3.1). S.A. Seif directed it and the film stands out (as the page explains with a source I added yesterday ...) as the only light comedy he ever made, at a pivotal moment in his career before the 1952 Revolution. I think that this alone seems enough to make the page worth keeping. Also, the page was created on January 18th. Isn’t all this a bit rushed? At least let’s wait for people with access to sources in Arabic or monographies to add to the pageMY OH MY 18:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When the page was created is irrelevant. If sources are known at time of creation they should be added then, or this article should have been in DRAFT until they were listed. We can't just create articles in the hopes that other editors will improve it enough to pass notability requirements. They need to be present at creation. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The page does not need to be improved to meet notability requirements, the subject of the page meets them or not. Here it seems to me it does but it could indeed have been better sourced to avoid this process, that I still find quite hasty, despite your kind explanation. Thank you anyway. MY OH MY 18:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. NYC Guru (talk) 10:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:00, 13 February 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!} 07:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Weißschnur[edit]

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

Fails WP:BEFORE search, lacks third-party sourcing. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 03:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politics, and Germany. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 03:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability, fails all criteria of WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC for notability. Jeppiz (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate cites on GS fails WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. My searches found two citations for one publication and none for the rest in Google Scholar, totally inadequate for WP:PROF#C1, and no reviews of his books, inadequate for WP:AUTHOR. As the only accomplishments listed in the article (beyond completing a degree) are his publications, no other possibility for notability is evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Diplomica and Grin are self publishing platforms, Wiley VCH Custom Pub is a service for self publishers who want to have a licence for their brand For Dummies. The author is neither well-known in Germany nor reviewed by magazines or newspapers. --2003:E0:F723:2700:C4E4:6478:ADCF:E89A (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not necessary that an author has to be well known to the broad public (particularly for non-fiction authors in specialized fields). This is just an assertion of an unknown IP address. The list of publications is sufficient, see Worldcat-VIAF and Worldcat-LCCN. --ImOnlytheDriver (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Section on a new concept developed by Weißschnur and other sources added. Springer Professional / Springer Nature are highly relevant in the field of professional media.--ImOnlytheDriver (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is no indication that Weißschnur's theory has been recognised by "independent reliable sources" as having significant impact, as WP:NPROF requires. The only coverage of it seems to be articles by Weißschnur himself, which are not independent. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although it is true that Weissschnur is the author of the texts (as a guest author), but he did not self publish them. The specialist publishers have done that, so it could be considered independent. --ImOnlytheDriver (talk) 11:03, 19 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 05:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lalla Hirayama[edit]

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

Doesn't meet notability Nswix (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, South Africa, and Japan. Justi yaya 05:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Dance. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She seems to have appeared in a large number of widely-watched TV shows. Park3r (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable individual. A WP:BEFORE provides substantial coverage in reliable sources, [18],[19],[20],[21]. The article is just poorly written and needs more references.-Xclusivzik (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she's notable and high profile with many sources such as those Xclusivzik shows but also many others visible in searching. Fulmard (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist. Regarding the comment "many others visible in searching", it helps in AFD discussions to be more specific about what you have found searching. Please share.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's wide enough coverage in third-party sources, I think. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 16:13, 15 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 05:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merryhill Schools[edit]

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

Unsourced article with no indication of notability. A BEFORE search doesn't find any significant coverage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, California, Nevada, and Texas. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Serratra (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No foundational references. Everything self-published Rhadow (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL for lack of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:23, 16 February 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!} 06:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of products manufactured by Fender Musical Instruments Corporation[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTCATALOG. WP:LSC says Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence and this list is just a compilation of things that exist (from a commerical company). Terrible referencing -- single source, plus one other reference. Lots of red-links, many non-links. No particular inclusion criteria if we consider a given instrument or model and all the different variants, sub-models, special editions, marketing changes, ... to be included. Or not? Mikeblas (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The sole source cited in the article could be linked to in Fender_(company)#External_links, and perhaps Category:Fender Musical Instruments Corporation products is a warranted category? Mooonswimmer 00:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Products, and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While we already have a Category:Fender Musical Instruments Corporation, the existence of a category is never a valid reason to delete a list article. A list article is far more useful than a category since it can contain more useful information. Anything that does not have its own article should be deleted from the list. There are plenty of blue links though. Dream Focus 00:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fender products do meet WP:NLIST and User:Dream Focus has already trimmed the non-notable entries. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. Also, Fails notability criteria among other things. From the one-line lead, "This is a list of products made by Fender Musical Instruments Corporation which have their own Wikipedia articles, that is false, to the 32 instances of the same source with just different page numbers, to failing WP:LISTN that reads, One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. There seems to be no hidden language. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added the part that says "which have their own Wikipedia articles". I removed most of the bad entries that didn't meet that requirement. Anyone can remove the rest. WP:NOTPERFECT applies here. Dream Focus 16:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The argument that it fails WP:NLIST is blatantly wrong as there are multiple books detailing the history of Fender and their products (e.g., The Fender Bass: An Illustrated History or Fender Amps: The First Fifty Years each of which have detailed, in-depth listings of each product). Not to mention that this page is suitable as a navigation page with over 50 several notable entries. For that reason alone, it should be retained. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easy to find sources which discuss the idea of Fender products as a category, group or set. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No source has been provided to support the argument that these products, as a group, have received significant coverage. Sandstein 13:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite literally false. And besides, even it did fail notability, lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. I hope the closing admin disregards your vote. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help me learn what "recognized informational, navigation, or development purpose" this article fulfills? Im' not sure what "recognized" means here, but I certainly don't know what specific role this topic implements. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? There are fifty pages starting with the word "Fender", and you can't see that there may be a need to list them? Why? I Ask (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm serious. I didn't write the policy you quote, and I'm not perfectly sure what it means. I guess you're saying that, of "informationnal, navigation, or development purpose", this article has a navigational purpose, and not an informational or development purpose? There are lots of ways to navigate and search articles, and some of those are already implementedfor the "Fender..." articles. What is the "recognized" navigational purpose here, and how was it established? -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Categories and lists can work hand in hand for navigation; having a "master list" that divides the model names under type like "bass", "guitar", "amp", etc. is more easily navigable to the reader than clicking through Category:Fender electric bass guitars, Category:Fender acoustic guitars, etc. And the list can be put into tables with manufacturing dates, designers, or sub-models that aren't quite notable for their own page, which can provide more "informational" context than a category. In terms of a developmental purpose, I assume that can mean adding red links to show what articles can potentially be created, although the inclusion criteria to allow for non-notable entries is an editing decision that can be discussed elsewhere. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's handful of categories for Fender products, and there's also four or five navigation box templates for Fender products. Was there some discussion that establised (that is, "recognized") this article for that usage? This extensive indexing seems more like WP:CATALOG than when I first opened the AfD. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dang, imagine doubling down based on misunderstanding policy. No, having templates, an article list, and categories has nothing to do with WP:CATALOG. That's absolutely stupid. In fact, there's a guideline about this at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates where: Category workers, list builders and outline builders, and series box designers all endeavor to develop comprehensive networks of links for navigating the encyclopedia. Because of this, increasingly, multiple entries to fields of knowledge are being provided. Take "symphonies", for example:
Categories: Category:Symphonies

Lists: List of symphonies with names

Navigation Templates: Template:Symphonies by number and name

Your entire argument now is reduced to a misunderstanding of common policy and guidelines. There's absolutely no reason not to have all three. While I hate to pull this card, you're an administrator. You should know better. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't "doubled down" on anything: I asked a sincere question. There's really no clear description of "recognized" in the policy, so it's only natural to ask after it. I don't appreciate your insults, and encourage you to assume good faith in your interactions with others. Further, that I'm an administrator doesn't mean that I'm completely familiar with every one of Wikipedia's ever-changing policies. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never insulted you, although I did say that conflating an internal navigation system with WP:CATALOG was stupid. I do apologize for accusing you of doubling down when you actually wanted clarification, though. But at the same time, I do find it troubling that you would nominate several list articles without knowing that guideline (which has existed since 2004), especially considering your long tenure. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can do this but I wonder if you have checked Google before suggesting that RSs have not discussed the idea of Fender products. Maybe @Why? I Ask would be willing to do the footwork to demonstrate what seems rather obvious to me (and which I have already checked myself). —DIYeditor (talk) 07:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I literally did above. Why? I Ask (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Versus figuratively? —DIYeditor (talk) 08:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be snippy (or use the word "literally" as an exclamation instead of what it means - geesh), you listed two things that refer to bass guitars and amps as categories, but the subject of this page is "products" so it would help to see something that discusses "Fender products" as an idea. If Sandstein is going to demand it. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I used the word literally correctly. I listed two sources that have shown Fender products (specifically, bass guitars and amps) have been discussed as a set. It would be dumb to say that we could have List of Fender amps or List of Fender basses but not a parent article. And besides, there are sources that discuss all products with Fender: The Sound Heard 'Round the World or any of the other books that are just a single search away (considering that Fender is without a doubt the most documented musical instrument brand). I'm going to have to fault Sandstein for their poor delete rationale due to a lack of a WP:BEFORE search and a lack of understanding of policy (that navigation lists are kept regardless of notability). Why? I Ask (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as far as "literally", was there some concern that someone would think you meant that Sandstein was figuratively false or that you figuratively did above? —DIYeditor (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No additional discussion since last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, lists are a navigational aid for our readers (most of whom have no idea about categories). We have lots of articles on individual Fender products, these being extraordinarily notable; why on earth wouldn't we gather them into a list to help our readers? 149.155.219.44 (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The contents meet WP:NLIST as reliable sources group them. Lots of source can be found by following WP:BEFORE searches, including:

Bacon, T. (2007). The Fender Electric Guitar Book: A Complete History of Fender Instruments. United States: Backbeat Books.
Guitars Made by the Fender Company. (1986). United States: Bold Strummer.
Hunter, D. (2020). Fender Telecaster and Stratocaster: The Story of the World's Most Iconic Guitars. United States: Voyageur Press.

CT55555(talk) 04:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:NLIST, can also be merged into a suitable article where appropriate if necessary. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 03:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Slevin[edit]

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

Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but currently does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2023-01 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than videos of him playing and facebook stuff, no sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 16:08, 13 February 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. WP:MUSIC does not apply to record labels. The relevant guidelines are WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. As such, I have not taken into account the arguments relating to WP:MUSIC. The other reference to WP:GNG in a keep !vote is just a WP:VAGUEWAVE. Therefore, if I take into account the !votes that rely on policy, I have to conclude that consensus is in favour of deletion, in this case. $Salvio giuliano$ 09:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Art Monk Construction[edit]

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The roster is substantial and we have a couple of articles discussing the label's operations in depth, to boot. One of the more important indies as suggested by WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This isn't my usual area, but in context of such low input...

WP:MUSIC doesn't seem to address record labels. So I think the guidelines for corporations is what I should look to. It has a high bar. The links in the article (interviews and passing mentions), my searches on google news (2 passing mentions) and google books (passing mentions) suggest this doesn't pass the notability threshold for me.

However, if I'm using the wrong metric, ping me, I'm open minded to change my opinion. CT55555(talk) 04:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This artice passes WP:MUSIC and GNG.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 15:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It appears that while wiki-ed student and page creator User:AlbinoFlea was notified of the prod (removed by User:Chubbles), they were inadvertently not notified of this deletion procedure on January 23 when this process was commenced. I've pinged AlbinoFlea, notified them on their talkpage and have taken the liberty of emailing them just in case, intentionally calling their attention to this process. They do not seem to be active in the last few months, however. I'd request we not close this yet, at least until pagecreator has a chance to acknowledge the ping, possibly weigh in here, or until the relist expires on the 20th. BusterD (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some editors above have !voted based on WP:MUSIC but record labels are not captured by those guidelines. This is a company so we need to look at GNG/WP:NCORP as the appropriate guidelines. Others say we have a couple of articles discussing the label's operations in depth. I disagree. We have some articles in (very) local newspapers interviewing the founders and the journalists do not provide any of the own opinions/viewpoints/analysis and so none of that content is "Independent", it is simply regurgitating a Primary source. Those all fail GNG/WP:ORGIND. Other sources are a mere mention-in-passing and fail GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH. I've looked to see if the label is mentioned in any books discussing music of that era and again, nothing that meets GNG/NCORP. FWIW, IMO it might be possible to create an article on Eric Astor, but not this label. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:12, 19 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 05:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Colors TV[edit]

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

WP:ADMASQ. Is this UPE? References are pure churnalism. All references are PR pieces, and TV listings, At least one is a 404 error. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:GNG. Creating editor is globally locked. Merge anything salvageable to Viacom18 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no comment on the TV channel itself, yet. But the TV serials from this channel were once plagued by UPE, socks, and promotional edits - still happens time to time. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2022-05 ✗ R2 ← 2020-05 move to → Draft:Move Colors TV

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep one of the most popular tv stations in India that has coverage in reliable sources in the article. There is no way that a similarly popular US tv station would be put up for deletion. 404s need to be fixed and are certainly not a deletion reason. Many editors have edited the article apart from the article creator including myself. This here is quite an analytical interview after the first question if you read through it all and would count as critical analysis even though it is an interview. Also many of its programmes have rs coverage as shown at List of programmes broadcast by Colors TV, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BROADCAST. An undoubtedly mainstream, popular,[22] tv station that carries notable Indian series, such that we even have List of programmes broadcast by Colors TV. Available in the US and UK.[23] Extremely strong presumption of notability. There's volumes upon volumes of sources mentioning this subject -- websites and even books, and it's very tiring to wade through them just to find a few that individually have in-depth coverage when it's obvious that the subject is extremely noteworthy (random example). The media does not often report on itself in a neutral in-depth manner. TV stations don't have to pass WP:NCORP. —Alalch E. 19:24, 18 February 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!} 07:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Randolph Peltier[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found mentions here, [24], [25], [26], [27]. Contender for Sportsman of the year. [28]. Those are just some google results. There maybe better sourcing locally for him. But it appears to be a bit of notability from google and that's just google. Govvy (talk) 09:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Govvy. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per refs found, passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Das osmnezz and Ortizesp: I never said to keep the article, I was just providing what I found and too me it wasn't enough. Regards. Govvy (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references above seemed rather trivial and routine to me, so I looked for more. I searched Dominican News Online and Sun Dominica and, Dominica Times . There were some mentions, and I only read the ones that looked most promising, but I found nothing that would make me believe the subject meets the general notability guideline. — Jacona (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG, and sources above to me aren't reliable. StarryNightSky11 ☎ 03:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Govvy's evidence. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- BoyTheKingCanDance, I'm a bit confused, are you agreeing or disagreeing with Govvy? They provided some links to sources, but said it was not enough for the article should be kept. — Jacona (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Jacona: I thought that the links Govvy provided were enough. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Jacona: I don't know! Sometimes these things turn into a catch-22! Govvy (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is going on here?? Nothing remotely approaching SIGCOV has been provided -- just pure trivial mentions, some of which are from clearly non-independent sources. 1: literally only contains "Randolph Peltier getting the equalizer for South East" and is from the governing football org, N. 2 and 3 are passing mentions in another governing sports org, N. 4 is just two sentences in a routine match recap, N. 5 is just his name listed in an announcement, N. Come on, guys. JoelleJay (talk) 06:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources that could count towards WP:GNG have been identified. Being mentioned once or twice in a match report produced by a football association just doesn't cut it any more. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Online coverage is trivial (he was one of 38 people nominated for a sportsman of the year award, but the article literally just drops his name in a list without any context or prose about his achievements) and article clearly fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:36, 16 February 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 09:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Semerkand[edit]

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

Another one of many battle articles which fails WP:VER, WP:NOTABLE and seemingly WP:RS as well. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Justi yaya 05:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The fact that the battle box records a mere 18 casualties suggests that this was not a serious siege. The article on Samarkand deals with this in one sentence referring to a rebellion. If it is kept it should be as Siege of Samarkand (1365), using the normal English spelling for this important city. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep? per JSTOR 4299705. At a glance, the article seems wrong, but I want to read this paper before deciding. If kept, it would need a new title. The events in Samarkand in 1365–1366 do seem able to sustain an article. Srnec (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A potential WP:ATD could be a redirect/merge to one of the many articles covering Tamerlane, like Timur, Timurid Empire, Timurid conquests and invasions, or Samarkand. Curbon7 (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: several paragraphs about this here I think, fwiw.Elinruby (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist. If you are advocating a Redirect/Merge, now is the time to settle on a target article. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The source that Elinruby highlights is written in impenetrably bad English and in any case doesn’t substantiate any of the specific factual claims in the article we’re considering. The source found by Srnec is very good, but likewise doesn’t seem to support anything specific in the article. The article we have isn’t really consistent with anything else we can find. If someone wants to write a properly written and properly sourced article on this topic that would be great, but until then our readers are not well served by our publishing this kind of unreliable information. Mccapra (talk) 09:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My searches (Google, Google Books, Wikipedia Library) brought up nothing useful, the existing citing doesn't have enough to suggest significant coverage. CT55555(talk) 14:33, 17 February 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. It can be treated as keep but all keep votes are not quite certain. (non-admin closure) Timothytyy (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Likud Knesset members[edit]

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

Article is an unnecessary fork of Lists of Knesset members and its individual pages. Replace with a redirect to the Lists of Knesset members page Totalstgamer (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Totalstgamer (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would this be better as a category, rather than a list? --Enos733 (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question. How is it a fork of Lists of Knesset members and its individual pages? The Knesset members are currently listed by session, by ethnicity, by position, and by party. This list comes under "by party" and is part of the domain of "its [pertaining to: Lists of Knesset members] individual pages". gidonb (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Totalstgamer, for you! I look forward to your clarification! gidonb (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its resorting the information by party, which is frankly unnecessary. Sorting is done by party in each individual Knesset page, which achieves the same effect, not to mention there's an entire category (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Likud_politicians) (apologies for the long link, i couldn't get regular wikipedia bluelinks to work) for Likud politicians, and that to say we 'sort by position' is inaccurate. We don't have a list of every member of the Knesset by the offices they've held, we have two lists of individuals whove held higher parliamentary (and executive) offices, and individual pages for each government ministry. There's no clear reason for us to also sort by party... twice. Totalstgamer (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So the article actually complements Lists of Knesset members (!) and the fork may occur with the individual party articles. I see, however, that many of the party articles do not carry this information. I have not sampled all parties but among those sampled Hadash has these lists. Likud doesn't, so this article also complements the Likud entry. In addition, the Likud article is long. This would make List of Likud Knesset members into a legitimate WP:SPINOUT. gidonb (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fork by the way is somewhat of an exaggeration in this context. The potential for redundancy would be really the concern. But it doesn't happen in the case nominated. Unless I miss something? gidonb (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concede fork might've been the wrong term, but the point still stands. There's no reason for this page to exist, especially since a table for Likud wouldn't be as long as the page we're considering deleting (the hebrew wikipedia uses such a table, i believe), or very long at all for that matter. Also of note, I've gone through the Knesset member pages and they're all sorted by party, which is the exact same information, laid out in the exact same way, and almost as easy to traverse. Given that fact, how does this page compliment lists of knesset members? those pages each already sort by alphabetical order and party. Should we also have an alphabetical list of all Knesset members? i presume there's a category for that, i haven't checked, same way there's a category for Likud politicians, who are overwhelmingly members of the Knesset. This doesn't have potential for redundancy, it already is redundant, its another in many lists of Likud MKs that's even more poorly maintained than the rest of them. Totalstgamer (talk) 13:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I will examine the pages again and see if any of the concerns you raise are justified. Thank you for explaining your concerns in greater detail! gidonb (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This information is easily available via the various lists of members of each Knesset, so I think this is unnecessary duplication. Number 5 7 12:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I checked some more (see above) but this really is a legitimate spinoff of a list that otherwise can be contained in the party article. Can also be made for Israel's Labor Party. Whenever the list of a party's Knesset members is very long, and the party article is very long! gidonb (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More opinions here would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. Seems like a legitimate fork, listing by party affiliation. Seems encyclopaedic. Comments about could this be a category, yes it could, and it's good/normal/helpful to have categories and articles that do the same thing differently. CT55555(talk) 04:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Not a fan of the formatting, but the topic would meet WP:NLIST since they are discussed as a group, and this list is organized in a way that is different than the category. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:52, 20 February 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 per WP:SNOW. Good faith nomination, but there is now significant coverage in media and now easily passes WP:GNG. That wasn't the case at nom - Alison ^talk 21:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Brianna Ghey[edit]

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

Article does not pass WP:GNG. It simply describes the murder of a trans girl but doesn't state why this particular murder is notable. People are killed each and every day. Why should this murder get an article while others do not? Seems very WP:ROUTINE to me. Noah^Talk 02:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not able to withdraw since there are people wanting deletion/draftify, but I have moved to keep below since the article satisfies GNG at this point. Noah^Talk 21:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Note, I'm the article creator. With regards to GNG, I think that a killing being covered by all major UK news outlets meets the definition of significant coverage. My only concern at the moment is WP:NSUSTAINED as we currently only have a days worth of media articles, however this is an issue that plagues all of our killing articles so I don't think this is unique in that regard and is mentioned in a relevant SNG. Would draftifcation be a suitable alternative to deletion, as that would allow for time after the AfD is closed for sustained coverage to be demonstrated. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care if it is draftified for now. Just curious as to what sparked so many to pick up this story. Was the victim notable in some way or is it just that knife killings are rare in the UK? It just seemed more sensational in nature than anything to me. Noah^Talk 02:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bit of both. Any killing of a teen (stats record 13-19) in England and Wales is pretty rare, with only 69 total recorded last year. What's rarer are when the suspects are themselves teens, and if the pair in custody are later convicted it would make them among the youngest convicted killers in the UK. The reported multiple stab wounds would also make this one of the more violent killings in the UK, though we'll have to wait for the postmortem to be released to know for sure just how violent the crime was.

Early reporting also raised the issue of this being a potential hate crime, due to the victim being trans and social media reports of the victim having been bullied for years because of that. However according to more recently released statements the local police have not found evidence to suggest it's hate related. But as with all killings, that too might change over the coming days, which makes assessing long term notability different.

In writing the article I wanted to keep it as close to the currently known facts as possible, hence why some of this was not included in the content. It made it shorter, and I was hoping to expand it based on the morning/afternoon news tomorrow. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm compiling a list on the talk page at the moment, before I try to figure out how to work some of it into the prose of the article. In addition to the expected statements from family and school principal, there have also been statements from two UK based LGBT rights charities (Stonewall and Mermaids), two Labour Party MPs who are not the MP for where Ghey lived, and several notable (as in they have articles on enwiki) bands and musicians.

While I was expecting some more articles this afternoon from the major UK press outlets, I was not expecting an article in NME, which is where the band/musician reactions are coming from. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run of the mill crime receiving some tabloid coverage. No indication of long term significance. Per WP:EVENTCRIT... "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the statement of notable politicians, such as Jeremy Corbyn, makes this a significant event. Leetinkoy (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Seeing broad coverage, and seems prone to ongoing coverage as well. Per Sideswipe above, there seems to be that "additional significance" requested by WP:EVENTCRIT. DecafPotato (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What significance? It's a murder. It's getting some sensational news coverage. That's it as far as I can tell. If something actually does come up that rings the WP:N bell, I will happily reconsider. But I'm not seeing anything at the moment. And speculation about what might or might not come up, is just that. See also WP:CRYSTAL. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's also WP:RAPID – it seems odd to delete an article for a lack of sustained coverage when there has been zero opportunity for such coverage, as the event happened just yesterday. I'm not necessarily opposed to draftification or another similar WP:ATD, however. DecafPotato (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't create articles about a subject because it might become notable. This subject does not currently pass our guidelines for establishing notability and the article's creation was precipitous. I am quite willing to wait and see where things are at the end of the customary week for discussion. But as of right now, I stand by my delete. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete see Ad Orientem's reasoning, and we can revisit if things progress. Ludicrous (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing else, draftify. No real concern of letting this breathe a bit more, though for now this just looks like a tragic event. Yes the killing has been highly-covered, but that alone does not establish significance. I'd lean towards draftifying rather than outright deletion to preserve the editing so far (and even if this killing is never judged to be worthy of its own page, it's material could end up eventually being used in larger articles, such as ones about violence against transgender individuals or such in the UK in specific). As of now, it's not clear the significance of the event to the point where this article should be in the mainspace. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless further news/evidence reveals anything of greater notability, i.e. it was an anti-trans hate crime. Otherwise, agree with Ad Orientem. The Kip (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Kip: Cheshire police are now investigating this as a potential hate crime. There's other sources on this below as well. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify at most per WP:NOTNEWS at the moment. I found out the latest news on this breaking story from this page, and the article. I think it will pass GNG eventually, but am dubious at the moment. The article is a few days premature. -Roxy the dog 08:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft - WP:TOOSOON AND WP:NOTNEWS. It is a sad thing when not every murder is notable, what a horrific event. JMWt (talk) 08:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - I agree with Ad Orientem's assessment that this is not notable at present. However, notability can develop later, so I think this should be draftified and revisited in the future. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 12:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until the notability of the event is upheld by sustained coverage in multiple reliable sources. Due to the age of the victim and the perpetrators, as well as Ghey's gender identity, it is not unlikely that there will be a significant public reaction and sustained coverage, and that the killing will eventually meet the notability bar. Mooonswimmer 14:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge anything worth salvaging into ~~Violence against transgender people in the United States or any other~~ related article and/or list. Fails WP:VICTIM. This crime, horrendous as it is, merits inclusion in enwiki only under the wider context of the elevated risk of serious violence that LGBTQ+ people face. Melmann 14:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Support this solution. Also, seemed to have occured in the United Kingdom, so probably include it under Violence against transgender people
Rabawar (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Surely you actually mean merge with Violence against transgender people in the United Kingdom (although we don't have that article at present). This is Paul (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I was reading another article about violence against LGBTQ+ people just before commenting here, which is probably why I mixed up the UK and US cases.Melmann 20:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is getting enough widespread media coverage to make it notable, and plenty of other similarly prolific murders have their own pages. Snokalok (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now and see how this develops. Whether or not it is notable will depend on the circumstances, and that's something we'll only learn in time. This is Paul (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how things work. We don't create articles about non-notable subjects and wait around to see if things change. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed not, but then perhaps the person who created this article thought it was a notable topic. The case will inevitably receive a lot of media coverage due to the victim's age and maybe because of her transgender status. At present that probably makes this a borderline case of WP:GNG, which is why I suggested waiting for now. Personally I would've waited a bit longer before creating it, but it is what it is. This is Paul (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt the good faith of the article creator. But there is no way this passes notability at present, unless you are prepared to completely ignore EVENTCRIT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I probably am going to do that at this stage, since the case for keeping the article is growing. Thankfully this kind of crime is rare in the UK, which in itself would make it notable. Add to that the criticism of the way the incident was reported, and the imposing of a no-fly zone over the crime scene due to the macabre interest of the media and others, and the case is already stronger. Also this case is already being used, and will no doubt continue to be used, to highlight violence against LGBTQ, and more specifically, trans people in the UK. We're far beyond the usual run-of-the-mill coverage that a stabbing death would generate. This is Paul (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As of now, seems like standard news reporting on a murder is all the attention this is receiving. It's a horrifying, tragic event, but WP:NSUSTAINED seems unlikely to be met at this time. WP:TOOSOON. --Jayron 32 18:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Change vote to Keep. Situation has changed in the past 24 hours in terms of source material. Agree that now this has grown to have enough information to pass standards. --Jayron 32 13:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The event has received notable media coverage, with multiple articles in The Guardian [29], [30] and the BBC [31] [32], and coverage has gone international with Teen Vogue [33] and Cosmopolitan [34]. CJ-Moki (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Broad coverage doesn't necessarily merit an article. There's been many a sensationalized murder over the years.

Outside of a hate crime or some other unusual details emerging, this doesn't meet notability standards at the moment. The Kip (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retain: For the UK this is very notable - such crimes are rare (see above) and coverage has been widespread amongst all media sources. Yes, WP isn't news, but this case will certainly have ramifications beyond the immediate reporting. This isn't appropriate to move to a draft but it might be sensible to review the article in a month or so. --AlisonW (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability criteria are not different per country. Could you please consider this article under the existing notability criteria? Melmann 20:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other criteria aside, the rarity of this within the UK would make it so that ROUTINE should have a different threshold than if this was a killing in the US or some other country. As I said above in my !vote, my only concern is NSUSTAINED.

Also as much as I loathe to make an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS type argument I would point out that we generally do allow for some leeway with that for recently occurred killings, in particular we seem to frequently create but rarely delete articles on mass shootings in the US, despite those absolutely and sadly being routine for that country. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article now passes GNG with the addition of information. Noah^Talk 13:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This situation has had numerous politicians, including a former leader of the opposition, make statements on it. The fact that it has been picked up by both sides of the "trans debate", as much as I dislike that term, shows that it's considered notable for a variety of reasons by all parties involved. Leetinkoy (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The controversies in media bias that followed this tragic event should give this event "additional enduring significance" referred in WP:EVENTCRIT --LT1211 (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others Estar8806 (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have seen hundreds of "un-notable" articles that are not pending a deletion. It also seems like a very popular story in the UK Hungry403 (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 13:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These tragic events, any events for that matter, would not have received the attention, and scrutiny offered in 2023, before the advent of digital connectivity before 1995. Social media is a mirror, and thus a reflection of "us" currently. Society has the technical ability to record History, literally, "in the making." Secondly, true, there are many events which "fall under the radar" of the scope of society's digitalized vision. Reason:the political ideologies manifest in our current society. Bentsince1963 (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note to editors making comments

This murder took place in the UK, not the USA. As such it is a rarity, not an everyday occurrence. --AlisonW (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why that matters, nowhere in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines does it say that the location of an event affects its suitability as an article topic. I've read WP:N front and back, an nowhere does it say that stories from the U.S. don't get articles, but stories from the U.K. do. --Jayron 32 13:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hate crime murders are rarer in the UK, so probably deserve more attention. Leetinkoy (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, can you point to the part of Wikipedia's guidelines or policies that say that? I'm struggling to find where it says that we give extra emphasis to hate crimes because they occur in the UK? Again, just trying to find it written down somewhere. I always want to be sure I keep within policy, so if that is a rule, I would just want to see it written down so I know that I'm supposed to base my vote on such information. --Jayron 32 15:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the guidelines do say that anywhere. I understand the point being made - that it's the exceptional features of this case in its context that give it its notability - but we don't (and IMHO shouldn't) have a rule that specifically encourages us to balance/bias things because of their location alone. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I am appalled that this article is being considered for deletion. The murder of Brianna Ghey is a highly notable and impactful event. It is not a "routine murder" when a 16-year-old trans girl is stabbed to death, it is not "sensationalism"! It is a tragic symptom of a generalised escalation in violence against trans people in the UK ([35]). Why not follow WP:RAPID instead of rushing to delete? The article has already 29 sources, and in a few days there will be even more news coverage to draw upon (vigils for Brianna are being organised in several cities). Moreover, consider who is harmed by the article existing (no one) and who is going to be harmed by it being deleted — the entire LGBTQ+ community who is rightfully shouting #SayHerName. Mushroom (Talk) 22:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would kindly like to invite you to please consider making a policy-based argument. Please remember that this is not the right place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Melmann 21:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I would encourage you not to use the RIGHTGREATWRONGS article to bludgeon discussion of sensitive and contentious topics. I see this done a lot at ITNC, as well - because a topic is emotive, and people report that emotional response (as reflected in RS) as part of their argument for its notability, others come in, in a very detached sort of way, to say 'oh, but Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs'. Arguably it isn't, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't report on those wrongs. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reminding editors to stick to policy-based consensus building is not bludgeoning the discussion. For every emotive argument attempting to WP:RGW there is an equally emotive argument of opposite polarity. Would you be so charitable to somebody making an emotive argument on behalf of J. K. Rowling? I'd venture you would not.

Our job here is to stick to policy in all situations, and not just when it suits us. Melmann 22:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Much work has been done to improve the article since this AFD was lodged and I feel satisfied that it meets notability criteria. --Pokelova (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - IMO coverage has been wide enough that we can, for the moment, presume notability. This may change in the medium- or long-term, but at this point in time I think there's enough evidence that it's notable. Gazamp (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As per above. It is a notable killing which has featured in the mainstream media. KeyKing666 (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of high-quality sources. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:DEPTH. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. LandonExists (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It follows all the WP:Notability guidelines, there are enough secondary reliable sources talking about her death, so I think it should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max BuddyRoo (talk • contribs) 03:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per others, clearly passes GNG. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 06:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AlisonW, Sideswipe9th and Mushroom in particular. I too note that an article the murder of a trans child in the UK gets listed for deletion very promptly, whereas school shootings are ten a penny in the US and don't get challenged so heavily. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 07:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As sad this event is, I don't think it should have it's own page on the encyclopedia. Awambawamb (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or draftify. There is quite a bit of coverage and this is still pretty new. I lean towards keeping this, but if not that then I absolutely think this should be draftified, as I expect that there would be more coverage in the future. The authorities also seem to be backtracking a little on their statement about it not being a possible hate crime. They said no evidence, but haven't completely ruled it out. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think that this has the capacity to become a cause célèbre^[1]. Depending on how the police handle this case, it could easily turn into a Stephen Lawrence^[2] or Sarah Everard^[3], especially now that the police think that it could be a hate crime.^[4] Also, the discussion surrounding this case is unlike anything I have seen in a long time, specifically in terms of the national media coverage that it is getting. I say we keep it at least for the time being and see what happens.TicTacTax(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:50, 14 February 2023

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_c%C3%A9l%C3%A8bre
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Stephen_Lawrence
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sarah_Everard
^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-64638653

The Murder of Sophie Lancaster is also relevant here - not just because of the circumstances of the case, but also because that article survived an AfD similar to this one, in large part due to the media coverage of the case and the wider issues surrounding it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Her murder is picking up increased notability in the media, as it's tied into the ongoing problems (increased hate crime and fear) that transgender people are facing within the UK; this is more than just a tragic stabbing, it has links to important contemporary issues, which media coverage is beginning to reflect.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 15:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete – Police have made it clear that there is no reason to suggest her murder was a hate crime. See here. As such, her murder is not out of the ordinary compared to 1000s of others that occur each year. If this changes when more information becomes available then I'd happily reconsider this incident having its own page, but for now it's just a regular murder and I don't think it merits a stand alone article. Public reaction seems to be largely driven by emotive purposes based on the fact that she was young and a minority (particularly a young woman, or indeed a young trans woman), but that does not make her death notable either. It's important that Wikipedia takes an outlook from the perspective of a neutral encyclopaedia, rather than become entangled in hyped up media frenzy, moral panics or tribalism. --Jkaharper (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is being investigated as a hate crime by the police, which is also cited by one of the keep comments above you in addition to the article itself. I will of course WP:AGF and presume that you are simply unaware of the development, but I don't think the earlier source can stand on its own as an argument for the article's deletion anymore. Supchppt (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"1000s of others that occur each year" is somewhat hyperbolic for recorded killings in the UK. As I said above, there were only [69 recorded killings of teenagers in England and Wales in the 2021-2022 year per the Office of National Statistics (latest year we have stats for). In total, there were only 696 killings of any age in England and Wales in the same time period. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes because the trans girl, in a country so obsessively transphobic it's frequently referred to as "TERF Island", being beaten up and harassed for years by her classmates for being trans, and then finally killed by two of them, in a country where teenage murders are quite rare, could not possibly be a hate crime. Not to mention the fact, of course, that the police have indicated they're now investigating it as a hate crime. Snokalok (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As someone above already pointed out, this is still being investigated as a hate crime. Regardless, whatever ruling the police ultimately come to is irrelevant as to to whether or not the article should be kept. What we should look at is how substantial the coverage of the event in reliable sources is and it seems clear to me that the coverage is more than substantial enough to make the event notable. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I think describing the understandable outcry, as reported in RS, at the murder of a teenage girl as 'hyped up media frenzy, moral panic or tribalism' is giving undue weight to a contrary position in which such events are seen as unimportant. Such a position would be highly biased, and unworthy of a responsible encyclopedia. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptionality is the kind of thing we judge based on the volume and type of reliable source coverage, not on the arbitrary particulars of the story. If a story is covered in-depth and with sustained coverage in reliable sources in a way that indicates it is exceptional, then it it. We also don't discount such stories merely because we feel they are unexceptional... Wikipedia is based on what can be shown by evidence, not by what we wish the world were like. --Jayron 32 13:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - I think people get confused (both ways round) between their feelings about the evidence, and what the evidence says about people's feelings. The former is mostly irrelevant; the latter can be highly relevant. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious Keep - and if it is to be removed, please draftify. The police have reversed their earlier statement about ruling out treating this as a hate crime, and the story does seem to be attracting continued attention in the press. I appreciate the logic of some of the oppose !votes, but for better or worse this case is developing into a cause celebre of sorts. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While the information is still evolving, the parallels to the Matthew Shepard case are unfortunately pretty strong. There's a pretty strong likelihood of ongoing secondary source coverage as the investigation proceeds and the case goes to trial, plus the relevancy of it in the context of effects of the political discourse about transgender people in the UK. Just in case there are concerns about whether I was canvassed: I actually found my way here from posting an AfD related to an English businesswoman, clicked the England cat, and found this AfD the line directly below. Lizthegrey (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per OwenBlacker and the users cited in his comment. Supchppt (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - tragic but not notable enough. Bermicourt (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless something significant happens as a result, e.g. a change in the law. If that happens, we can always restore it. Deb (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not particularly noteworthy unless a change in the law occurs. TheNoblestShroud (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of murders on wikipedia that led to no such changes, and yet have their own articles. Why is this one any different? Snokalok (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To both the above posters asking for it only to be considered if there is a change in the law - that's an incredibly high bar, a demand for a truly exceptional level of significance. The Murder of James Bulger, a very notable case in which the accused (and in that case convicted) perpetrators were minors, did not lead to a change in the law, but it would clearly be absurd for us not to cover it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is being investigated as a possible hate crime now.Autarch (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or draftify. Media coverage is now pretty significant for this tragic incident (as mentioned above it is already being investigated as a possible hate crime). If this is still considered to be insufficient or insignificant to be kept as an article, I think it should be moved to the draft space; however, I do think it is already good to be kept as it is (especially because it now has 30+ references). Vida0007 (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now significant media coverage and discussion. wd-Ryan (Talk) 20:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant media coverage. Asrieltheoracle (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant media coverage. Seems to be as notable as Killing of Gracie Spinks and Death of Keith Lyon after a 15 minute review of Deaths by stabbing in England. Ward20 (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You should not decide what future generations can read on wikipedia? 93.242.105.246 (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We kind of do - that's exactly the point of AfD. And if this article were to be deleted now, and subsequently we decided that it was something that should be read about on Wikipedia, then it could be recreated. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This event has received significantly more coverage than most murders of teenagers. After only four days, it's been picked up by non-British news sites including Vogue, NBC, Vice News, and The Journal and has been commented on by high-ranking politcians. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding on to this The New York Times, CNN, The Washington Post, Insider The Midnite Wolf (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm a bit baffled by this nomination. Sure, people are killed every day - but that's easily overridden by the international GNG coverage. Nfitz (talk) 04:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep — Plenty of international media coverage of a significant event. Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Given this happened in the UK where it's a rarity, it's much more notable than the myriad of murders in the US and some other countries. --Shawn K. Quinn (talk) 06:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - getting global coverage and being investigated as a hate crime. Anarchyte (talk) 07:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very heavy coverage in the British and international media. Clearly more than just a routine murder. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The murder has received significant coverage in both British and international high-quality, reliable publications. And given the connection to transphobia and trans rights in the United Kingdom, it's safe to say that it will continue receiving coverage. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to Keep based on the continued and likely long-term coverage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Given the conflicting messages of WP:DELAY and WP:RAPID, the best we can do once an article on a new subject is created and nominated for deletion is to evaluate the likelihood that it will continue to receive coverage moving forward. Based on the incredible amount of international attention this has received, it seems extremely likely to me this event will see lasting significance. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was expecting this story to go very quiet very fast but (fortunately) I was very wrong. The lid is off and it seems to be staying off. There is sustained international coverage and notability is absolutely established. The story has wider ramifications with the behaviour of the police and, particularly, parts of the British press being examined. MPs are getting involved. I appreciate that a lot of people don't like a light being shone on what goes on in the UK but that's just tough. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the SIGCOV- appears to be sustained. No WP:RUSHDELETE. Lightburst (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Close This AfD At this point the article has 41 citations. An admin should close this AfD now due to WP:SNOW and WP:IAR. Leaving the deletion notice on the article is an embarrassment, and an invitation for the media to criticize Wikipedia about transphobia. Ward20 (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article didn't satisfy GNG at the time of nomination but it does now. What the media thinks is of little importance. We don't let the media dictate everything here. The notice will be removed in due course. Noah^Talk 19:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much the reaction of the media as the reaction of our readers that we should consider. Without blaming you for anything, I think that it is fair to say that this has become an embarrassment and that some readers might see the banner and find it distressing. Given that this is only going one way, I do think it would be best to end it now. DanielRigal (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, having a “nominated for deletion” page over a very prolific trans murder, does tend to make people ask certain questions.

I’m not accusing the nominator of anything, I’m sure their intent was and is pure, I’m merely commenting on the optics in play. Snokalok (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Most people viewing the article will be unfamiliar with how deletion discussions work on Wikipedia and may not assume good faith. Since the case has received exceptional media coverage, WP:IAR seems appropriate here. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it was not immediately clear whether this was a hate crime investigation, it is now. The level of coverage the case is receiving raises it above the routine. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moderately weak keep I’m not feeling too weakly about this nomination, but I’m not 100% on board to keep, due to the fact that this might not pass WP:ENN (specifically the 109 papers portion), but this being a rare event for the UK dragged me onto the keep side. 71.125.62.146 (talk) 21:58, 15 February 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Night Club (1989 film)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. Tagged for notability.

PROD removed with "Deprod, Corbucci’s last film", which isn't accurate. Women in Arms (film) is his last film. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. Women in Arms was released after his death. — MY OH MY! 08:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Italy. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'm not seeing significant coverage in English but I don't read Italian and that is the language in which sources are most likely to WP:NEXIST hence "weak." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Sources indeed exist. Very positive review in La Repubblica here, for instance, or this page quoting reviews of the time, etc. This is a notable film by an an important director...— MY OH MY! 08:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The article's creator clearly has no idea how Wikipedia works, but the film is notable. IMO the right move with these types of pages would be to draftify them. Cavarrone 19:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Found a full review by a national Italian newspaper. Keep in mind this is an archive of an independent review from 1990. Common sense tells me that if one example of significant coverage exists and can be found via Italian Google from 30 years ago. Along with the other hits I think the notability guideline is likely met and so keep is the most appropriate outcome. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion such as reviews in La Repubblica newspaper and evidence of other reviews so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:45, 14 February 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zum zum zum n° 2[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. Tagged for notability.

PROD removed with no improvements. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Italy. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — poorly received sequel of the Corbucci-Little Tony 69 musical, notable as such. — MY OH MY! 08:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, I also added a couple of reviews from two books I own. Cavarrone 20:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as three reviews of the film in reliable book sources have been added to the article so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:41, 14 February 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.

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_c%C3%A9l%C3%A8bre

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Stephen_Lawrence

[3] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sarah_Everard

[4] ttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-64638653

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]