Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 20	February 22 >

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 02:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

La 7 Cartapiù[edit]

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

Appears to fail GNG, but further input is appreciated, especially those proficient in Italian. May be a good candidate for merging into the apparent parent group, Dahlia TV. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 23:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Italy. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 23:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – insufficient significant coverage to pass GNG, from my searches. There are a few passing mentions, but not more than that. --IWI (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found one source that appears to provide significant coverage (though I can't confirm it because I don't speak Italian). Will change my !vote if more sources turn up. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:20, 28 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 Nabila Khashoggi. Star Mississippi 02:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NabilaK[edit]

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

NN company, prod denied UtherSRG (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the references in the article are one-word mentions. The best source is this[1], but it's basically a company press release and not independent. BruceThomson (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- several sources and recent https://nypost.com/2022/10/29/last-minute-donations-to-hochul-zeldin-in-the-ny-race/ 98.173.52.117 (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That NY Post article is about the person, not the company. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nabila Khashoggi, I'm unable to locate any sources that meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Nabila Khashoggi due to insufficient coverage. Also note that the New York Post should not be used to establish notability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:23, 28 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. (non-admin closure) Timothytyy (talk) 03:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Van-Dunem Da Fonsech[edit]

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

Very sparse media coverage apart for her being a so called "Iron Lady" of police. She appears to be a mid-high level Namibians police official. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO Razer(talk) 21:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Razer(talk) 21:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies WP:GNG. She is the chief of police for an entire country. There are several more articles I found from a quick search which are not in the article itself.--User:Namiba 03:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, She is not the chief of Namibia police. A quick google search and our Wikipedia article - Joseph Shikongo will tell you that the chief of police there is - Joseph Shikongo. I have no idea what the article mean when it says that she is the chief inspector. Razer(talk) 03:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
chief inspector is a rank CT55555(talk) 04:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly take note the article did not refer to her as Chief of the Police but she is Chief Inspector that is her rank. Deleting this post on basis is quite ill informed decision. Shikoha Tautiko (talk) 06:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are indeed correct Shikoha Tautiko (talk) 06:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your view that she has few media coverage. There are endless wide range of media coverage of her, specially in the crimes that she tries to combat apart from the cited articles the following are additional credible national media coverage were the article can be further developed.

https://neweralive.na/posts/dafonsech-church-fight-over-n68m-land

https://www.namibianewsdigest.com/christian-democratic-voice-condemns-ndeitungas-remarks-on-churches/

https://nampa.org/index.php?model=categories&function=display&id=19958520

http://www.thevillager.com.na/articles/13017/motswana-traditional-healer-pastor-busted-healing-without-papers/?fb_comment_id=1871624206216191_1872560236122588

https://www.namibian.com.na/6217852/archive-read/Dafonsech-sent-north-to-tackle-fake-churches

https://neweralive.na/posts/police-rescue-secretive-church-congregants

https://neweralive.na/index.php/posts/conman-busted-for-selling-non-existent-vehicle

https://www.namibian.com.na/public/uploads/documents/551bd7b9ce160/TheNamibian_Web_c.pdf Shikoha Tautiko (talk) 07:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if kept, needs redirects from various other forms of her name including the full version in lead and shorter forms. PamD 09:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I think it would be best for this article be returned to Draft space where the article creator can work on it. It's not ready for main space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What are the weakness of the article ? I think the article should remain in the main space and it should not be deleted. Shikoha Tautiko (talk) 06:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shikoha Tautiko You might want to reread what you've typed and see if it says what you intended. Did you miss out a "not"? PamD 15:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD the error is rectified. thank you once again Shikoha Tautiko (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the varied media sources over several years show her to be notable. PamD 13:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which varied sources are you talking about ? I cant find anything more than WP:ROUTINE coverage. Police officials are not inherently notable and the subject is a mid level official of Namibian police which I am sure there are probably hundreds if not thousands . Razer(talk) 15:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. As I commented here, I won't be closing this discussion but I think it is okay for me to relist it. A closer may close the discussion whenever they see what they believe is a consensus on this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is not about the rank that she is holding that makes her notable, but its about her community policing activities that she has been caring out with determination in the community, that is what makes her to be an outstanding police offer among many other police officers. Shikoha Tautiko (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with the above, the discussion and confusion about the ranks is a distraction from the real question we should be discussing, which is: does she meet WP:GNG. Considering the recent improvements to the article, I think she does. CT55555(talk) 13:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plenty of coverage from pretty much all major Namibian news outlets. More than half of the references are actually exclusively about her, so WP:GNG should not be an issue at this point. --Pgallert (talk) 09:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:06, 28 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 23:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Glacier Trust[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. References 1 and 2 are not actually about this organisation. All the other sources are primary. LibStar (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can provide sources that give significant coverage (a Google search did not provide any). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 18:26, 28 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. Star Mississippi 02:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On Athletics Club[edit]

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

Non-notable running club. No mentions found in RS, only blogs/ twitter and the like. Individual members are notable, perhaps TOOSOON for the club. Oaktree b (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are the qualification of a notable running club? While OAC doesn't have any Olympic medals yet, they certainly have made an impact in global competitions. Is the lack of non-traditional sources the bigger issues? Thanks Brank718 (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of any kind of sourcing in newspapers, magazines or anywhere. Simply existing doesn't get them an article in Wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I've added sources from the New York Times, Vouge, Outside, World Athletics, Runners World, Canadian Running, Athletics Illustrated, Citius Mag, and LetsRun. Would that that be proper sourcing? Brank718 (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Brank added some good RS sources for it to meet notability from RS. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further assessment of new contributions to the article. Please do not remove the AFD tag while discussion here is on-going.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 21 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 Earth Trust#Earth Trust as an alternative to deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Food Festival[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:ROUTINE - the local-scale event has only happened twice, and the article sourcing is from local publications only (announcing the event) with the exception of a promotional placed article by the organisers in the bbc website (e.g. not editorially driven by a reporter). Article creator may be a connected contributor (part of Earth Trust) based on editing history. Lizthegrey (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. Lizthegrey (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Local coverage is fine for a food festival, and a food festival specifically aimed at children is the opposite of WP:ROUTINE Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What would your thoughts be on compromising with a merger of the stub content that's currently there, into Earth Trust#Earth Trust Events instead? Lizthegrey (talk) 07:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTNEWS - According to WP:NOTNEWS, "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news coverage of ... events..., while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage." Since the Chidren's Food Festival has only taken place twice, once in 2007 and once in 2009, and the Wikipedia page on the event does not include specific details about the event besides when the event took place and the festival director's thoughts on the event, the Wikipedia page is not providing readers with additional content or value and should be deleted unless additional content from this article (Oxfordshire Children's Food Festival) about the first event that took place can be added to the Wikipedia page. This page should only be kept if there is sufficient content to add two additional sections to the Wikipedia page, one for each event date. Currently, the page only includes one section with a brief description of the events under which the References are listed. --Rollercoaster2001 (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NTEMP - According to WP:NTEMP, "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." There are very few sources of coverage on this event, and it is not something that will receive increased coverage because the event only happened twice over ten years ago. Googa8 (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Earth Trust#Earth Trust Events as suggested above. The coverage is too slim for a standalone article, but would be a valuable two sentences on the Earth Trust article since that part of the Earth Trust article is underdeveloped. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I also agree that merging this article to the Earth Trust would be the best decision. There are reliable sources, but it isn't notable enough to be a standalone article. Especially because it doesn't follow the guidelines of WP:NTEMP "Notability is not temporary". The event occurred two times, in 2007 and 2009, and it hasn't been updated ever since so the article is not likely to gain coverage in the future. However, it would be a useful detail to the event host's wikipedia, Earth Trust. Username1736 (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, NTEMP is usually understood differently from how you are using it here. The idea with "notability is not temporary" is that if something got a whole lot of newspaper coverage in, say, 1850, but it has been forgotten since then, it is still considered notable today because there's no expiration date on coverage. For the idea that an event should have some kind of lasting impact to be notable (i.e., the idea that temporary events are not notable), you may be thinking of WP:LASTING? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:23, 25 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blackbraid[edit]

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

Missing reliable/non-self produced sources. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 20:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 20:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nomination shows no sign of a WP:BEFORE search to find reliable sources that could be added (see also WP:NEXIST), but also did not notice that the article already has several reliable sources listed including Rolling Stone, Decibel (twice), Metal Injection, and Metal Hammer. They are simply hidden within the overload of social media junk, which can be removed through the editing process rather than nominating for deletion. Here is more in-depth coverage: [2], [3], [4], and the metal community talks about this act regularly. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified above such as Rolling Stone, Decibel, Metal Hammer, Metal Sucks and others (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources) that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Should be pruned, not deleted. /Julle (talk) 20:40, 28 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 23:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of parodies in Gintama[edit]

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

Unreferenced article. The list of parodies within the series doesn't warrant its own article.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan. Xexerss (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced fancruft. Ajf773 (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely unsourced list of trivia. There are no sources that I can find that would indicate that the fact that this series has references to other things is a notable concept, and there is absolutely no valid content here that would need merged into the main Gintama article. Rorshacma (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - purely WP:FANCRUFT and no sources. Link20XX (talk) 19:43, 22 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 Red apple#Culture. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Red apple (mythology)[edit]

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

Nothing at destination about mythology. UtherSRG (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a WP:RfD issue, given that the page is a redirect and not an article. Lennart97 (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I've now cross-listed it there. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Red apple#Culture, where the mythological meaning is mentioned. Redirecting to a disambiguation page may not be ideal, but the topic actually seems to be notable - just compare this publication and this search more generally - so I think the redirect should not be deleted. Daranios (talk) 11:55, 23 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 19:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adrien Tuison[edit]

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

Article about footballer who made a few Ligue 2 appearances but which comprehensively fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Le Journal de Saône-et-Loire has a number of articles that provide routine coverage (e.g., injury report, match preview and post-match interview) but I can't locate anything that would be WP:SIRS. Jogurney (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I don't know anything about Adrien Tuison, but I was able to pull 8 different sources on him in less than a few minutes. I updated the article as such. I can't understand why the first move would be to mark the article for deletion over trying to add a few sources. He is a pro player that got significant coverage.KatoKungLee (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect, the 8 sources you added to the article are entries in statistics databases which are not significant coverage. Please take a look at WP:SIGCOV for a better explanation, but in short the source should discuss the subject in depth (as a statistics database almost never does) and the source should be reliable and independent of the subject (such as a newspaper or magazine that exercises editorial control over its content). To answer your question, my first move was to check for SIGCOV, and finding none (please read my statement above), I brought it here for consensus on what to do next. Jogurney (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's hundreds of thousands of soccer players and 8 different sources found him worthy enough to make a page for. That's notable coverage if I've ever seen it. There's players who were captains on championship first division teams that didn't get that much. What is the realististic expectation for a non-superstar player? Maybe a random profile article or two once in a while, but that's about it. And that's not counting that we are limited on English speaking sources and working around the censorship of Google/Bing.KatoKungLee (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowman, I just updated the article with 8 different sources in under 5 minutes. I'm not sure why marking it for deletion was done over that when it took just about as much time.KatoKungLee (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Databases only, those are ten a penny - where is the significant coverage? Giant Snowman 18:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of coverage can really be expected for 2nd division players? Getting sports sites to even talk about lesser top division teams is a feat.KatoKungLee (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't believe this meets WP:GNG. Sports database entries don't help in terms of establishing notability (point 1 of WP:SPORTCRIT). Hey man im josh (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per SPORTBASIC, Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. (emphasis mine). Since there does not appear to be a way for Tuison to meet this standard, he does not pass SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 24 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 19:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Powhatan Roberts Robinson[edit]

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

I was only able to find a wedding announcement for this guy in newspapers.com. If somebody has a New York Times subscription, maybe they can find out if the obituary has anything of substance. However, it should be noted that newspapers.com has other New York publications, and they come up basically empty - only a short, undetailed obituary in the Bangor Daily News. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can only find passing mentions in the NYT. The obituary did not yield any substantial information. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried a google books search and found lots of glancing hits, most probably for a father with the same name, nothing substantial in any case. -- asilvering (talk) 01:01, 24 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. While some issues were identified with the article's quality there is a consensus he was a member of a body that qualifies for inclusion under WP:NPOL. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tee Hock Seng[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability, non-official resurrected deletion; promo GenQuest ^"scribble" 18:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ping former participants: @Javert2113:, @Sandstein:. GenQuest ^"scribble" 22:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GenQuest ^"scribble" 18:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: again, lack of notability. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 23:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He passes NPOL as a member of the Malaysian national legislature. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I think he was more of a bureaucrat than a politician, as it was one unelected post he was appointed to. The rest is all party membership fluff, but nothing indicating elected positions. Not even a candidate. I may be reading NPOL inaccurately when it comes to Malaysian politics, tho. I also suspect the company may be more notable than he is. It should also be noted that there has been a lot of effort put into keeping this article alive, mainly by SPAs. This is the second time around for it. I think salting is a good idea. GenQuest ^"scribble" 17:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't see why being appointed would make a difference as to his eligibility under NPOL. NPOL also includes judges, for example, who are usually not elected. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article does seem very promotional, but he was a member of the Malaysian Senate according to this , so the article should be kept per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 03:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:NPOL - a member of the national senate. The article does need an improvement in tone, which is not, in itself, reason for deletion. Rkieferbaum (talk) 18:20, 1 March 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Smith Henderson[edit]

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

Biography of a lawyer and unelected political candidate, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for lawyers or politicians. As always, non-winning election candidates do not get Wikipedia articles for being candidates -- the notability bar for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, and an unsuccessful election candidate gets into Wikipedia only if he already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him an article anyway. But this isn't really establishing prior notability as a lawyer either, more or less just briefly documenting that he existed as a lawyer while being much more focused on the candidacies overall.
And the sourcing isn't cutting it in terms of getting him over WP:GNG, either: three of the seven footnotes are just an elections database verifying his unsuccessful election runs, two are content self-published by directly affiliated organizations, one is just a glancing namecheck of his existence on one page of a book about somebody else, and one completely fails to mention him at all and instead just tangentially verifies the existence of his son (but note also that notability is not inherited, so he isn't notable just because he had notable relatives either.)
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be a subject of real coverage and analysis in real reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a soldier with this exact name who died in 1918, I don't see anything about this person. I was going to say this was a vanity page, but he's been gone for over 50 years, I don't see notability. No sourcing found for a lawyer, not meeting requirements for a politician either. Oaktree b (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the KC after his name looked promising, but it isn't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Counsel#Ontario Oaktree b (talk) 01:18, 22 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. General consensus against deletion. WP:SNOW was possible but the AfD ran it's full 7 day course. (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 18:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina–Mexico football rivalry[edit]

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

A rivalry is one where both teams...and their sets of supporters...really look forward to beating each other. It is a game that both sets of fans have circled on the calendar and is routinely seen as a "big game" by both sets of fans. Mexican fans have this mindset towards Argentina, but Argentines do not towards Mexico. This does not meet the criteria of a "rivalry"— Preceding unsigned comment added by G. Capo (talk • contribs)

Keep passes WP:GNG per the sources in the article explicitly referring to this series as a "rivalry." This includes top news outlets such as Reuters and the NY Times. Frank Anchor 18:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Argentina, Mexico Frank Anchor 18:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources do mention the "rivalry" and there is much more coverage: CNN Español, El Pais, NY Times Español, Marca, Reforma, El Economista (this covers a rivarly between managers but it is part of the Mexico v. Argentina umbrella), Record, La Jornada, etc. I do think the rivalry is mostly one-sidedly viewed by Mexican sources, mostly given how successful Argentina has been in the sport, but sources widely cover this rivalry. The article needs much improvement, however. Happy to assist here although I'm no expert in fútbol. 19:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morogris (talk • contribs) 19:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rivalries can be notable even if they are only viewed as rivalries by one of the fan bases. They can even be notable if they were completely made up by the coach of one of the teams, who created a trophy for the "rivalry" game as a publicity stunt (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civil Conflict (college football game), though that is a rather extreme example.) The only requirement is that the rivalry, or whatever you want to call it, receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources (i.e. meets GNG) and that is the case here. Smartyllama (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly passes GNG. Giant Snowman 21:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As one of the main contributors to the article, I found enough reliable sources to consider it a real (maybe recent, but real anyway) rivalry.Fma12 (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - The sources that are listed above are either Mexican or are from publications outside of Argentina. If there are Argentine publications that declare that this is a real rivalry then I would vote to keep this article. As it stands, for many non-Mexican fans of the sport...and a few Mexican fans of the sport...this existing article strains the credibility of Wikipedia. Argentines does not view Mexico as rivals. Based on the definition above of a rivalry, this is not a rivalry. G. Capo (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- You are the nominator, so there is no need to !vote delete, as the fact that you nominated it clearly means you support its deletion.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Understood G. Capo (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Odd reasoning. It's well documented that the England–Germany football rivalry only means anything to the English [5] [6] [7] yet nobody would ever consider deleting that page just because all the sources are English. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  By Wikipedia standards I guess you can consider England-Germany a rivalry, as by those same standards you can consider the Connecticut-Central Florida college football game as someone described above a rivalry. In the real world, a rivalry is what I described above. Argentina-Mexico isn't a rivalry, but apparently it's a rivalry by Wiki standards. G. Capo (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant coverage from multiple WP:RS, clear GNG pass Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Snow and slap. Govvy (talk) 18:59, 23 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 tallest buildings in Doha, Qatar#Al Mana Tower. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al Mana Tower[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Zero in-depth refs from independent, reliable, secondary sources. Was sent to draft in hopes of improvement, but returned to mainspace without any. Was sent to AfD where it went through a soft delete. This is pretty much the same article recreated. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and previous AfD outcome. Jfire (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Doha, Qatar#Al Mana Tower. Or "merge" some small amount of info. Note ~~The 2 Palm Towers are #6 and #7~~ Al Mana Tower is #5 tallest in Qatar. For these and other tall building AFDs, enforce redirecting and merging to existing list-articles. "Delete" decisions are almost always inappropriate IMHO, as it would be here, because wp:ATD is obvious, available. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 00:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note in recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JW Marriott Tower Hotel, it was noted that List of tallest skyscrapers in Qatar and List of tallest buildings in Doha, Qatar both exist, and overlap, and should be merged. Make that decision part of closure of this AFD. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 00:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO "Delete" judgement on separate building AFDs may seem attractive so that AFD editors/closer can act emphatic/harsh, but may contribute to frustration on the part of the outsider editors who create and re-create these. Let them see their material in edit history of the redirect. As part of closing AFDs on tall buildings, advice the creators that some more detail, with sourcing, can be included in the row(s) of the table in list-article. Channel their energy rather than inflaming. Obviously past practices have not cut off the churn, so how about try to help these editors make a small impact in the list-articles, instead? Or would that be appeasement, and Wikipedia should be punitive instead? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 00:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Above copy-pasted by me from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palm Towers (2nd nomination). --Doncram (talk,contribs) 22:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Doha, Qatar#Al Mana Tower - lack of acceptable coverage but clearly a plausible search term Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Doha, Qatar#Al Mana Tower per above suggestions. // Timothy :: talk 09:39, 1 March 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 15:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dumpin On Anything (DOA)[edit]

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

Article about a musical collective, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The only notability claim even being attempted here is that one band member was arrested for murder, and the article otherwise doesn't even try to document that the band would pass even one criterion in NMUSIC as a band -- and even the footnotes are entirely crime coverage of that individual member's legal troubles, not entertainment coverage about the band as a band. And further, the band member who went to jail already has his own standalone BLP, so there's still no pressing need to keep this on that basis per se.
Bands are not "inherently" notable just because one individual member of them went to jail: even if you're shooting for "band that had members who were also independently notable as individuals" as the notability claim, NMUSIC requires two members, not one, and the article neither claims nor sources that the band accomplished anything that would actually pass NMUSIC at all.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable at all, especially when we already have another article in which the same content can be addressed anyway. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet NMUSIC or even GNG. No info found beyond Sound Cloud and Genius.com. Plenty of hits on the phrase, but nothing for a musical group. Oaktree b (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My search for sources turned up for nothing. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:11, 21 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Jones (British diplomat)[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Uhooep (talk) 10:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Could only find coverage for namesakes. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Ambassadors these days are mostly just stuffed shirts who say only what they are told to say, but their statements are reported, and readers may ask "who is this guy?" His role during the flap over the Swiss vote to restrict free movement of people could be seen as related to a notable diplomatic event. A quick search turned up Immigration vote: Dark clouds, «Wir warten auf Lösungsvorschläge», Immigration: "L'UE ne bluffe pas", avertit son ambassadeur en Suisse, EU ambassador warns over immigration vote, EU ambassador pushes hard line, RICHARD JONES Ambassador of the EU and Switzerland: the way ahead. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
of those additional sources, Jones is not the subject of most of those, it's more about the bilateral relations. This one is the only one which Jones is the actual subject and could be considered in depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article cites a Who's Who entry (that I cannot access) and an EU CV, which would also count. I just tried "Richard Jones" "Ambassador" "Switzerland". Presumably a more careful search would turn up more. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On WP:RSP Who's Who is called "generally unreliable". JohnmgKing (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Aymath2. If he wasn't notable he wouldn't have made the Who's Who 2014 list.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Pretty much every diplomat, circuit judge and district judge in the United Kingdom is included in Who's Who. I don't think inclusion by itself makes them all notable. Uhooep (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is not a very high bar. The subject just has to be discussed in some depth by more than one reliable independent source. In this case, we have found three online sources that give short biographies, and several others that report what the subject said. It is all very mundane, but enough to justify an article. Probably many of those diplomats, circuit judges and district judges could have articles too, if anyone cared to start them. There is plenty of room in Wikipedia. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 12:20, 14 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 14:11, 21 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 15:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elham Galica[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Football, and Albania. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; apparently he played in the Albanian top division with Besa and Flamurtari early in his career, but online coverage is limited to routine/trivial stuff like match reports and statisical database entries. Jogurney (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is Albanian Sport 1 but it's largely derived from Facebook and his club's website and doesn't contain any detailed coverage. Albanian Sport 2 is just a brief transfer announcement and Panorama mentions him once. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 23 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diwali in Muzaffarnagar[edit]

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

NN book. UtherSRG (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and India. UtherSRG (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets criteria #1 and #2 of WP:NBOOK. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly passes first and second criteria of WP:BKCRIT.

First criteria says that "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists and reviews." and this book has been subject of 6 reviews.

Second criteria says "The book has won a major literary award." and this book is a recipient of Yuva Puraskar. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 14:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found one more review by Pooja Pillai of The Indian Express. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 14:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I also found an article about the book in The Caravan. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 15:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now this article has been subject of 7 reviews and 1 magazine article which are independent. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very clearly meets WP:NBOOK criteria. -- asilvering (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not going to !vote, but I reiterate whatever I said in WT:AFC discussion. The book won Sahitya Academy award and received several National media reviews. Sometime blockd user's article too goes hard to AfDed because of the article subject's notability. Twinkle1990 (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For historical reference: User:Twinkle1990 said "Though Misterrrrr is blocked as a sockpuppet, the article Diwali in Muzaffarnagar book is not suitable for AfD as it has won notable book reviews and won Sahitya Akademi award. Sahitya Akademi books have been always been a notable whenever AfDed.For example this." in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 12:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LordVoldemort728 yeah, the Sahitya Academy award winning books and writers are generally notable and I have stressed out to find previous AfDs similar to this always survived. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not the most notable book but it is at least reliably referenced enough to be kept. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NBOOK #1 and #2.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:16, 25 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 15:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of conservative evangelical Anglican churches in England[edit]

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

1. Fails List Selection Criteria policy. Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective; but that is not the case here; not least as the definition of "Conservative Evangelical" is disputed: many churches which accept the ministry of women self-define as Conservative Evangelical; many churches which take a complementarian view are nevertheless not under alternative episcopal oversight.

2. Fails Common Selection Criteria policy. Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of objective criteria: ...; but this list is none of the common sets, nor any alternative but coherent set.

Summary: Ulitmately the problem is not simply that this is not a list of Conservative Evangelical Anglican churches; it is that no verifiable and coherent encyclopaedic list is possible. The boundaries of the category Conservative Evangelical Anglican churches are simply too disputed to make this list anything but partial, partisan and misleading. Springnuts (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Springnuts (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and England. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Springnuts (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationale by nom. -Roxy the dog 13:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NavjotSR (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for many, many policy reasons. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- While some churches may obviously fit, there will be a large number where their status is disputable, so that inclusion may depend on the editor's POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appreciate this nomination being brought up due to the PAG violations. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 11:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would agree with the concerns that as there is no accepted definition of what constitutes a "conservative evangelical" Anglican church that such a list is not possible. Dunarc (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a list, I don’t see this passing WP:LISTCRIT. Shawn Teller (talk) 04:44, 28 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!} 06:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All-Party Parliamentary Jazz Appreciation Group[edit]

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

I'm not sure generally how we are to assess voluntary and non-official groupings of British parliamentarians, but this seems to be one that has almost no coverage in RS that I can find. At best they run a minor annual jazz price which has been reported a few times. As an AtD it could be merged with Parliamentary Jazz Awards but I have my doubts about whether that is notable either. JMWt (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: An article on a recreational association for which membership is not a defining characteristic. While I agree that the Parliamentary Jazz Awards article may also be dubious, referenced to announcement-based coverage, it could serve as a redirect target. AllyD (talk) 12:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seeking consensus for either delete or redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems similar to caucuses in the US Congress, but most of those aren't notable and this lacks independent coverage. Reywas92^Talk 14:18, 21 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 delete. A7. G11. Take your pick. Star Mississippi 19:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Helocha Youth Association[edit]

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

New article (created 8 February 2023) on a charitable organisation. Page is sourced to Facebook, the organisation's own website and a directory of NGOs. I have not been able to find any references to add through WP:BEFORE. This looks like a run-of-the-mill charitable organisation which does not meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Tacyarg (talk) 09:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Assam. Tacyarg (talk) 09:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why have you repeatedly sent this article page to nomination for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Im Safiqul Islam (talk • contribs) 07:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. The first-person writing could be fixed, but without first finding evidence of notability, that would be a waste of time. Maproom (talk) 08:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NORG, and blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NORG. No notability on WP:BEFORE search. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:46, 22 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. (non-admin closure) JoelleJay (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Lazard[edit]

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

Hello, I just came across Daniel Lazard page and I think it doesn't respect the rules. I was told that i couldn't have nor create a wikipedia page for myself because my name wasn't in any journalistic source, that I didn't have enough notoriety. This page doesn't have journalistic sources either but still makes the promotion of his work and articles, and his biography is dense about where he grew up etc. even with unsourced material. Can I also create my own page and publish my own work on it ? Else I have to ask for deletion. Thanks in advance— Preceding unsigned comment added by Username1789 (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Mathematics, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~ Speedy Keep. Stunning citations for pure mathematics. Bad faith nomination: a trout for the nominator. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Xxanthippe. Article could be improved a bit but as it stands, it shouldn't be deleted. MaterialWorks _(talk) 11:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of citations (in a lower-to-low citation field) for WP:NPROF C1, and the retirement conference helps further support this criterion. Note that authors are usually ordered alphabetically in mathematics. References are needed for some personal facts, and the list of selected publications is a bit overlong, but WP:DINC. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep seeming bad-faith nomination aimed at retaliating against another editor rather than improving the encyclopedia; article passes WP:PROF#C1. See also Tkuvho's removal of notability banners in 2011 and my unprod in 2018. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obvious keep, a large number of highly cited publications. Jeppiz (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Bad-faith nomination stemming from an off-wiki dispute. Neither WP:BEFORE nor a reading of the relevant notability guideline were conducted. Curbon7 (talk) 01:09, 22 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Boris[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No reliable sources nor any significant coverage. Many of the sections are entirely unsourced. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 09:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Radio. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 09:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 21 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 15:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nihilist Communism[edit]

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

This article started off as a stub about a book, but was recently expanded in scope to imply the existence of a homonymous tendency. At a glance, it doesn't appear to meet the standards of our general notability guidelines.

Of its 11 cited sources, 2 are links to pages where it has been sold, 1 is the NC book itself, 2 are other articles written by the author, 2 are author landing pages on an anarchist website, 1 is a Goodreads landing page for the author, 1 is another goodreads landing page for a different primary source by the same author and 1 is another web page for buying it. Only one cited source (Cunningham 2011) is a secondary source and that easily failed verification, only mentioning "nihilist communist" briefly in passing and citing the NC book for a statement about its authors.

As this appears to fail GNG and I can't find any substantial reliable sourcing for it anywhere else, I'm recommending this article for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Politics. Grnrchst (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OP, this does appear to fail GNG. No substantial independent reporting, some of the sources are tenuously linked. Seems to be a minor concept from a non-notable book by non-notable authors. — Czello 09:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nom's analysis of sources in the article is correct. Searching for additional sources throws up various uses of the term but without much consistency - more often it seems to be people putting two established concepts together. There is a little discussion of the book, rather than the concept ([8], [9]), but still not enough to pass GNG. WJ94 (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. It's not completely non-notable. It gets a few hits in Google Scholar but the Google Books hits are mostly people using the term in a different, pejorative, sense. It does not seem to merit a whole article but, if somebody wants to give it a couple of sentences in some other appropriate article, then I'd have no objection to a redirect. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete - Sadly I can't argue against the points raised, I have tried to improve the article but it is still below the necessary standard. I have a copy I will continue to work on keeping an eye for reputable sources, but for now we will have to lose the article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment generally, can accept that this might well be a case for TNT, but I'd also argue, in line with WP:NEXIST, that there is actually adequate sourcing to satisfy WP:NBOOK and have an article on this text: discussed over two pages in an eight page review of "Freedom of things" by Gilman-Opalsky,^[1] discussed over four pages in de Acosta's 2010 article in Anarchist Developments in Cultural Studies.^[2] I also find a handful of passing mentions to the text (PhD theses^[3]^[4] and peer-reviewed texts^[5]^[6]). The text appears to be acknowledged within academic anarchist studes to have had an impact and hence notable.

References

^ Gilman-Opalsky, Richard (31 January 2020). "Book Review: Harrison, Peter, The Freedom of Things: An Ethnology of Control". Theory in Action. 13 (1): 240–241. doi:10.3798/tia.1937-0237.2010.
^ Acosta, Alejandro de (2010). "Anarchist Meditations: Or, Three Wild Interstices of Anarchy and Philosophy". Anarchist Developments in Cultural Studies (1): 128–131. ISSN 1923-5615.
^ HINES, FRANCIS (2021). "EVADING REPRESENTATION: THE LITERATURE OF CONTEMPORARY U.S. ANARCHISM" (PDF).
^ Ritner, Scott. "The Critical Spirit: The Pessimistic Heterodoxy of Simone Weil - ProQuest". www.proquest.com.
^ Vitale, Sarah E. (2020). "Post-Marxist Political Ontology and the Foreclosure of Radical Newness". Philosophy Today. 64 (3): 651–669. doi:10.5840/philtoday2020107352.
^ Aarons, Kieran (2020). "Destitution and Creation: Agamben's Messianic Gesture" (PDF). Journal of Italian Philosophy. 3: 51–89.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Goldsztajn thanks for sharing these. To be honest, I'm not sure how much these would provide for an article on the subject.

Gilman-Opalsky provides the most substantial information: that the book is a critique of the left; that it's familiar with Marxism; that it doesn't provide an "alternative to the left"; and that it's critical of "limits of anti-capitalist radicalism". Acosta talks far more about a different one of Dupont's texts (species being), with its only reference to NC being a small quote in a footnote. Hines only references the term in passing, as part of a broader look at "total liberation" (so I added it to that article). As far as I've looked, Ritner never mentions the term or its author once (am I missing something?). Aarons references it in passing in a footnote, where he describes its take on prefigurative politics as "objectivist". As for Vitale, I unfortunately don't have access to that text.

Really, going by summary style, the amount of information provided here would give us maybe a couple sentences? I'm still not sure that's enough for an article. -- Grnrchst (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Grnrchst My mistake with Acosta, scanned too quickly and didn't fully see the references to the other Dupont text. I've not !voted here as I can see this is pretty borderline, although with all the sources available there's possibly an article on Frére Dupont. I don't disagree with the direction of this AfD (delete/draftify/redirect...although no clear target for the last option), just that I think there are sources to justify an article broadly speaking, although we're just not there yet. Perhaps @Cdjp1's suggestion is the best option. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rationales above and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anarchism#Nihilist Communism. The above sources do not meet the general notability guideline or book notability guidelines. While the first two listed sources are a start, there isn't an indication that this topic has been widely treated as an independently notable topic. Theses, dissertations, and other manuscripts without peer verification only are treated as self-published and only stand on virtue of their author's expertise. We don't use them to prove wider notability and only barely include them in the encyclopedia for minor details. Articles should generally be based on reliable, secondary source coverage, in depth enough to write an article worthy of the subject. czar 23:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete maybe keep it in draft for a little instead of immediately deleting it.

NatriumGedrogt (talk) 23:28, 27 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. There is a consensus that there is some content in this article that could be useful in some other articles, but that this topic does not merit its own coverage. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Races of StarCraft[edit]

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

This article fails WP:GNG with no WP:SIGCOV in secondary sources of the StarCraft races. For the most part, it uses primary sources or trivial mentions in unassociated articles. Therefore, it seems to serve no encyclopedic purpose.

I cannot rule out one or more of the races possibly being notable if good sources are found, but right now it would need a full rewrite, and a WP:BEFORE failed to find WP:SIGCOV of note. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The OP's insistence that there is no significant coverage about the races and factions of the StarCraft universe is incorrect. A quick WP:BEFORE search by me, through Google Scholar (I haven't looked at Google Books or trawled through pop culture and game journalist websites which may discuss the topic on more casual terms) already yielded substantive writeups from at least three different sources. A substantial amount of SoundCraft: Transducing StarCraft 2 (cited by up to 9 sources) focuses on musical interpretations and technical analysis of StarCraft's gameplay and its individual playable units (through a program developed by the authors), all of which are distributed among the game series' three major factions. This kind of info could actually serve some kind of "encyclopedic purpose" for people who are interested in how the games works through some of its most visible moving parts, since the OP objects to excessive in-universe information about the series' fiction.

Universe of Teleological Illth: A Critique of StarCraft 2 on the other hand, provides an in-depth critical reading into the fictional world of SC2, and so the races and factions which appear in that game are discussed in aggregate through a critical lens, often on sociology terms, and not as fancruft from a fan's POV. Lastly, A citizen science colonisation model for the Koprulu Sector in StarCraft 2, micro Terran to defeat Protoss and Zerg directly and specifically deals with the "Races of StarCraft" topic in detail. According to the abstract, it presents "results from a citizen science outreach project to develop models of interstellar colonisation based on the multi-player strategy game StarCraft 2. Data were gathered from the online gaming community to provide a test set of outcomes for encounters between several fictitious alien species, each following various economic and military strategies." It concludes in summary that "the mean stellar occupancy of each civilisation averaged over the 100 realizations shows that the Terran inhabitants of the fictitious Koprulu Sector, pursuing a strategy of early pressure against their opponents, would eventually conquer their Zerg and Protoss adversaries."

I have demonstrated that there is no real prospect of deletion for an article about the topic, and the OP has not provided a viable alternative or merge target for this topic. On the other hand, I do not disagree with the OP's claim that the article is in need of a rewrite and seems to serve as a mass of fancruft which seem to serve no encyclopedic purpose. So the question would be, is rewriting the article using information sourced from the aforementioned sources in order to catalogue elements of each faction an adequate solution, or maybe we should consider whether it should be retitled to reflect a different focus: perhaps Universe of StarCraft, where primary information about the factions/races are dealt with briefly and instead takes a backseat to the discourse from secondary sources like the ones I brought into the discussion? Haleth (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a small amount of the information into the game's main article. We are not here to host enormous piles of fan-cruft (there are better places to host detailed descriptions of game-play), but it's reasonable to give a brief summary of the important features of a notable game. I checked the Google Scholar hits referred to above. None that I found were about the subject of races of StarCraft. Nearly all were about the use of StarCraft as a model for developing AI, and merely referred to the races, they being a major part of the game. Elemimele (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your assessment and I question whether you've actually read the sources I raised beyond a cursory glance. A citizen science colonisation model et al was the only one of the three that discussed the game series' factions within the context of AI, and even then, it "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content", per the definition by WP:SIGCOV. It certainly isn't written as a dissertation on AI modeling with the fictional StarCraft universe only being tangentially mentioned as you are suggesting. Consider that both StarCraft games, being some of the most-played video games in esports history, have left a deep cultural impact in the video game industry and undisputedly subject to significant coverage from both critical and esports commentators, how the races play should not necessarily be confined to a mere "brief summary" on the main page as you suggested, because there is adequate coverage from secondary sources. Universe of Teleological Illth is written from a sociology perspective and has nothing to with AI, while SoundCraft discusses the games' soundscape within the context of the fictional universe and its inhabitants, and again, nothing to do with AI development. To reiterate, WP:GNG defines significant coverage as "more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". My point stands that there is enough coverage to write a Wikipedia article, even a short one, about the fictional universe of SC from a non-fancruft perspective, be it a Universe of StarCraft, Gameplay of StarCraft, or the current title which has a more narrow focus ala Factions of Halo. Haleth (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge information about the Zerg into Zerg rush (which is currently a redirect to Rush (video games) -- either in this article or in a newly created one), a small amount of the information into the main article of the game per Elemimele above, and delete the rest. WP:VG/RS searches came up with nothing outside of small blog posts. I found a number of stories which talked about the Zerg in terms of the Zerg rush strategy, but it isn't incredibly helpful for arguing to keep this article -- more of an argument to expand a different one. (Sources found: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] -- all of these are secondary sources at best with passing mentions, and almost all about Zerg Rush, the strategy). Nomader (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, none of those references appear to merit the creation of a zerg rush article - they are all, as you said, trivial mentions. The Escapist article would be a decent source for a full-on Zerg article rewrite if more can be found, yet it is only on a single race and therefore has no effect on whether or not this one should be deleted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a common enough phrase that with some actual digging in and research, you *might* find enough sources between books and other things to talk about it more extensively... but looking at the "rush" article I linked to above, I think the information on it would be fine there. It's worth flagging that I found absolutely nothing when I looked for other races as well, so I still think that any non WP:FANCRUFT-y information should be merged into the main article and then it should be deleted. Nomader (talk) 08:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomader: I am surprised you "found absolutely nothing", as I see a number of hits in e.g. this search for Protoss. Sure, many of them only contain short statements, but that's more than nothing. Daranios (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios: I should clarify, because that's absolutely fair. I found nothing more than at best, passing mentions. Even the top result of your Google scholar search is about rush gameplay strategies for the game StarCraft II and isn't about the races themselves -- it would be better incorporated into the article about the game instead. WP:VG/RS reliable source searches for Protoss only come up with articles about e-sport match strategies and passing mentions about the race ([19]), or come up with Wikia pages. I stand by my !vote and think this information would be better served in a summary style in the main series article. Nomader (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because there are a number of secondary sources. In addition to the ones cited by Haleth and those already present in the article, Algorithmic and Architectural Gaming Design, p. 108-109 has a good half-page on the races, and Protoss-, Zerg- und Terraner-Werden (starting p. 135) is a 20-page chapter dealing with gameplay of the races in Starcraft, with about 2 pages each dedicated to the evaluation of each of the three races. There is also this Wired article, as well as many shorter but non-trivial statements about the races in academic sources. So I think these together not only fullfill WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, but if all this information were to be included in the main StarCraft article, it would make for akwardly large chunks within the Backstory and Reception (and Gameplay?) sections. Daranios (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Wired article, at least, is fannish to the extreme and unencyclopedic for Wikipedia's purposes. A "scientific study" about what race would win is clearly ridiculous given that this is a fictional universe; what happens is decided by the writers, not physical laws. I would throw it out wholesale. The first book seems like it's still trivial coverage, merely a dull description fit for a fan wiki with no critical response. That leaves the German book, but sadly I wouldn't be able to say whether it was good enough as I cannot read that language. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really how we determine notability. Whether we think that it's patently absurd to do a study like this, a study was made, which is worthy of note. Like, if Joe Biden went on a tangent about which races in Starcraft were the strongest, the fact that it was a bizarre thing to go into would not make it notable that it was acknowledged as more than a passing reference. The Wired article tells us that the people behind the Edinburgh study deemed the races of StarCraft to be sufficiently significant enough to warrant analysis. For that, I reckon I am going to say Keep the article. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: they deemed StarCraft significant enough. The researchers obviously did not research Starcraft because they thought the Zerg were cool-looking or narratively intriguing, but because the game gave them an opportunity to run a test. The game's races were an afterthought and it would quite literally not matter if all 3 factions were human. That's how it's clear it's irrelevant and at most should get a mention on the page of the game itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: "ridiculous"? You mean, like an academic paper using dragons to teach biology? The aim of the scientific study was to illustrate scientific methodology with the help of a pop-culture item. I think that is completely valid, not at all ridiculous. It also means StarCraft's races were not the main topic of that publication, but that is explicitly not needed for contributing towards notability. More importantly, we don't determine ourselves which topics we find ridiculous or not, we use secondary sources for that. If Wired writes an article, then their editorial board has deemed the topic important enough to write about it. That's our critereon. And if you look through that article, you will find "races of StarCraft" and the individual races talked about much more then the game StarCraft overall. Daranios (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule requiring people to use sources because someone's editorial board deemed it important. Common sense is required, otherwise we'd be using every little Kotaku article that gets published there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: "requiring to use sources"? No, indeed not. But if they exist and are not disqualified e.g. on grounds of WP:Reliable sources, then this becomes an opinion/editorial judgment, but one can no longer claim that the topic fails WP:GNG. Daranios (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure where you got that impression. A Pokemon with 3 clickbait sources from otherwise reliable locations would not pass GNG. After all, an article with no sources would look rather strange. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: As I said, if there are grounds to discount a source, that's another matter. But according to WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Wired magazine is ok as a source. And the fullfillment of WP:GNG is dependant on "coverage in reliable sources", no matter if one personally likes the content within the coverage or not. Daranios (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An interesting topic. There is some excessive detail here, perhaps, and some stretching of sourcing (WP:SYNTH?); at the same time, Starcraft is one of the most important video games in history; this can be conciveably notable. I need to review the sources and arguments more. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting GNG per sources found and discussed here. Jclemens (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is divided between those advocating Keep and those who believe a Merge would be sufficient.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge there isn't much scholarly discussion on the subject, and that's the issue. Most stuff will be fancruft and sources we can't use; what's left (as discussed above) can be merged. Oaktree b (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Zerg per others. A similar thing happened with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Star Control races (2nd nomination) and Ur-Quan. One race has pretty clear and significant coverage, but the other races have been mentioned mostly in passing, with the Terrans having the least significant coverage. If we are following the sources, we'd focus on one race and let the others be covered incidentally in the plot summary of the game. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker: As Zerg redirects here, you mean "rename and trim"? Daranios (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working to form a consensus, and I want my comment to be taken in the same spirit of other merge suggestions. I am open minded on the target, and your suggestion would be acceptable. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, Terrans are just glorified humans and don't have any particular uniqueness about their lore, so it makes sense there would be an order of magnitude less coverage. They don't need to be lumped in in a vain attempt to make them more notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: So we agree that there's some coverage of Terrans (and the other races). If Zerg have "an order of magnitude" more, you support Zerg as a stand-alone article?

Anyway, while I assume there is more coverage of the Zerg than the others, I think "an order of magnitude" is not correct. Looking at e.g. the three sources I've cited, Algorithmic and Architectural Gaming Design has most on the Zerg but also something on Terrans, Protoss-, Zerg- und Terraner-Werden has about the same on all three player races, and the Wired article has more on the Terrans than the others. Likewise, GameSpot has an article series on each of the three (already in the article). Daranios (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"They don't need to be lumped in in a vain attempt to make them more notable." is the opposite of what Wikipedia's deletion policy says what we should do with the existing coverage on Terrans: "Pages about non-notable fictional elements are generally merged into list articles or articles covering the work of fiction in which they appear." Daranios (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios: I have since found that Aliens in Popular Culture p. 245-247 may have WP:SIGCOV about the Protoss and Zerg, though I can't access part of it. There are a couple interviews about the Zerg's development process that, while a primary source, can flesh out the article. I'm still not 100% convinced Zerg is notable but it's seeming far more likely than Terran, and while the policy says "non-notable fictional elements are generally merged into list articles", that already exists at Characters of StarCraft, so this article would not be needed at all either way. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the design and cultural impact sections and get rid of the other parts which are fancrufty content. OceanHok (talk) 04:13, 26 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. If more coverage of the film appears later, or looks likely to, I (or any other admin) can restore this to draft. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marooned Awakening[edit]

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

Spam for non notable film. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No full length reviews from nationally known critics. No major awards. Ref-bombed with routine announcements, reproduced PR and local interest puff. Constructed by three tagteaming SPAs and a bunch of Guernsey IPs. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks for raising this @Duffbeerforme.

Regular coverage in the Hollywood / UK tabloid press, which are forms of independent, third-party reliable sources, which this film has, is proof of notability.

From the secondary, independent sources that are contained within the reference section, I see that the North American distribution rights to the film were bought by Gravitas Ventures. Clearly the film is notable enough to be picked up by a major Hollywood distributor. This also aligns well with point one on what is required as "Other evidence of notability" for a film to be defined as notable. You are correct in stating that there is interest from local press, but that is always the case with films produced, shot and financed in small jurisdictions such as Guernsey. The local media like to shout about it. But the references are not made up largely of "local interest puff". A quick google search for the film reveals a range of coverage across the board, from Hollywood staples like Deadline Hollywood and Variety, to major UK news outlets and tabloid press, such as the Manchester Evening News, Daily Express, Daily Mail and Metro. I also see that the substance of coverage ranges across different story-types and angles. Some are announcements of large castings, such as that of Tim McInnerny, whilst others make mention of it in Tilly Keeper-biopic-style pieces. If it wasn't notable, I don't think large independent and notable media / news outlets in their own right would be name-dropping it. Equally, a YouTube search reveals that the film's trailer has been shared across notable film-buff channels, including by FilmIsNow Movies & Trailers.

I disagree with your assessment that it "lacks coverage in independent reliable sources". However, I am inclined to agree that this page could be better referenced. There are sources out there but they have not been placed into this page widely enough. Perhaps once it has been released in North America on Apple TV+ (21st Feb), critical reviews can be incorporated into the reference section.

Many thanks and best regards. 46.31.240.176 (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The user has been blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dobhran6ruadh duffbeerforme (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being picked up by a distributor is not an indication of notability. It's just another business deal.

Let's look at the sources you are providing here. Deadline is a routine casting announcement, regurgitated PR. Variety is a routine announcement, a regurgitated PR. Manchester Evening News says "before starring in British psychological thriller Marooned Awakening in 2022, in which she played the girlfriend of the main character." That's it. That's a passing mention, no depth of coverage. Express says "has since been in BBC Three's Make Me Famous, Marooned Awakening and True Colours." That's it, even worse. Daily Mail is not a good source, WP:DAILYMAIL, and only says "Her most recent project before You came in the form of British psychological thriller Marooned Awakening, which was released in September." That's it, still no depth of coverage. Metro says "She will also appear in the upcoming British thriller Marooned Awakening." That's it, still no depth of coverage. As FilmIsNow Movies & Trailers says [20] "All videos published on this channel have been officially provided for promotional purposes." More PR, not independent coverage.

None are any good for notability.

"Perhaps once it has been released in North America on Apple TV+ (21st Feb), critical reviews can be incorporated into the reference section." Ye maybe then it may become notable but until then that's just a crystal ball.

On a side note, editing from an IP whilst ones account is blocked is block evasion and is not allowed. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:41, 15 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!} 05:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should almost be draftified until it comes out (today) and some critical reviews hopefully get written about it. Oaktree b (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As of today (see date below), there is one review on film-authority.com that appears in Rotten Tomoates. I don't thin we'll be at GNG if this trend keeps up. Oaktree b (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It has created in mainspace so its perfectly valid to accept this afd as a whole. No effective references. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 13:04, 1 March 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 weak keep. (non-admin closure) Timothytyy (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yan Dobronosov[edit]

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

Seems to be notable only for one photograph, that of the yellow kitchen. Could be merged with Mykhailo Korenovsky in order to create an article about the photograph. The photographer does not seem to be notable otherwise. Bedivere (talk) 03:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as discussed in the article about the boxing coach, there could very well likely be an article about this photo itself; we don't need one about the attack, the person that died in the attack and the person that took the photo of the attack. This isn't a Pulitzer Prize winning photographer, the rest of his work seems rather routine. Merge to an article about the yellow kitchen photo would be the best option (but it doesn't exist, yet). Oaktree b (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Time magazine has an article about the photograph [21], that would be the best way to tie these things together. Oaktree b (talk) 03:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Motivated by your comment (and my concern about losing content) I have created Ukraine Yellow Kitchen Photo to make it easier for you to !vote Merge. CT55555(talk) 01:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is notable mainly for one thing, but also for other things. WP:BLP1E isn't mentioned, but it is implied, which is what I was considering before I created this one. I created it because he is notable for more than one event (helpful rubric on how to assess that here WP:NOTBLP1E.

Therefore, he passes WP:GNG due to the coverage in Time Magazine, BBC, RTL, with coverage starting before the photography that is is most noted for. CT55555(talk) 03:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONEEVENT. We can be certain the picture may be notable, but not the photographer. It is not a problem to have an article for the work only but not for the photographer, it's perfectly okay, most importantly when this person is only known for that photograph, and it is not even regularly associated with his name. Bedivere (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. CT55555(talk) 04:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Realising that we've probably all been judging this based on English language sources, I've added Ukrainian coverage, which occurred in between 2019 and 2022. Note also this November 2022 interview reported by Union of Journalists of Ukraine https://nsju.org/zhurnalisty-vazhlyvi/yan-dobronosov-nasha-robota-ne-ostannya-v-cherzi-na-peremogu/ In summary there is lot of Ukrainian coverage of his work. I think !votes made before these updates might be out of date now, hope others will reassess. CT55555(talk) 03:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to consider possible Merge to Ukraine Yellow Kitchen Photo.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article on the bombing, where a couple of sentences on him, the photograph, and the coach can reside until the respective subjects' long-term impact is established enough to override NOPAGE. JoelleJay (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable, passes WP:GNG due to the coverage in Time Magazine, BBC, RTL. GR86 (📱) 18:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His work has been covered in such sites, but not himself personally. Notability is not inherited, too. Bedivere (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at the article recently? It is 280% longer than it was when you nominated it for deletion, with many pieces of significant coverage from several years worth of reporting on his work. CT55555(talk) 23:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have and my opinion is the same. Bedivere (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help me understand why? Almost none of the original justification to delete the article seems remains plausible to me. He's been in various different news outlets, from different countries, for news for four separate things, over a period of years. There are multiple news articles about him. It seems clearly like a WP:GNG pass, so please tell me in what way you think it fails GNG? CT55555(talk) 00:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It reads like the resume of a regular, common photographer of any part of the world. Does not seem particularly noteworthy. His photograph, may be. Of course this is only my opinion and we do not have to agree. Bedivere (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But newspapers are writing significant coverage him many times. That makes him notable. Can you please be specific about how he fails WP:GNG? CT55555(talk) 02:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have already told you. Not one of these sources goes into specific detail (as in, main subject) about the photographer. Those who do treat Dobronosov in more detail, are about controversies and seem like yellow press. I am doubtful these are actually reliable sources. That is a no for me. Bedivere (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I don't think the article should actually be deleted, rather it should be merged into the yellow kitchen photo article. This person may be considered notable later and this article could easily be recreated. I wouldn't object that. Bedivere (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Time Magazine and BBC among others reported on him in 2023.

2020 reporting includes significant coverage from 24 Kanal (established 2006) https://24tv.ua/meni-pohy-shhotivvazhayesh-sluga-shevchenko-znovu-vidznachivsya_n1407048 and Vysoky Zamok (newspaper) (established 1946) https://wz.lviv.ua/news/419611-trymaisia-dobre-za-balkon-nardep-vid-sn-pohrozhuvav-parlamentskomu-fotokoru

2021 coverage includes significant coverage by Детектор медіа (a 2016 not for profit) https://detector.media/community/article/187969/2021-05-13-fotokor-bukv-povidomyv-shcho-okhoronets-medvedchuka-trymav-yogo-liktem-pid-gorlo-ta-ne-puskav-do-sudu-video/ and in Obozrevatel (founded 2007) https://news.obozrevatel.com/show/people/ukrainskij-fotograf-yan-dobronosov-rasskazal-istoriyu-kak-voditel-spas-ego-ot-okkupantov.htm

2022 sources include Institute for War and Peace Reporting (a 1991 not for profit)

I could encourage you to assess this more carefully before labelling these Yellow journalism CT55555(talk) 03:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and otherwise is WP:BLP1E. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:55, 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!} 04:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ukraine Yellow Kitchen Photo, where he is obviously mentioned. Not enough independent, in-depth coverage about him personally for a standalone article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Due to WP:BIO1E. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The 2020 incident about his press credentials and a famous 2023 war photo would be two distinct events and surpass the 1E tests. Available sourcing seems to pass WP:GNG. The articles about the coach and/or photograph might be better suited merged here, but that's outside the scope of this AFD. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Seeking consensus between keep and redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found a source saying that Dobronosov has a state award ([22]), maybe it can be used for WP:ANYBIO — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThegaBolt (talk • contribs) 17:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG and does not appear to fall under WP:1E. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources cited. the sources support notability. Myna50 (talk) 12:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to the participation of the last few commenters. Please note this will be resolved by the weight of arguments, not by a vote count. The person in question remains not notable enough to be eligible for an article in my opinion. Bedivere (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources in the article and mentioned above clearly show this meets GNG. The date range and topics from the references indicate this is not a 1E situation. // Timothy :: talk 06:57, 26 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 ESPN College Basketball. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wednesday Night Hoops[edit]

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

Could not find sources to improve the article or mention the existence of it. It currently only relies on one primary source from 2005. Could also be merged into ESPN College Basketball. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Basketball. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ESPN College Basketball It's a night of college basketball games with no particular conference affiliation and this doesn't need a full article. The only part of the article that stands out, the Raycom Sports exclusivity, hasn't existed since the ACC Network launch and Raycom no longer exists after the Gray Television merger. Nate • (chatter) 00:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ESPN College Basketball. Only a couple passing mentions found via Wikipedia Library. This article lacks any meaningful secondary sources, so there's no real substance for a merge. Redirect seems like a fair solution. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:54, 21 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 Catherine (ship). While it's true that the judgment of whether or not coverage is considered "significant" is indeed subjective, I think we can all generally agree that a few sentences ain't it. Consensus is that there is not sufficient significant coverage to establish notability of the ship. As there was not strong agreement on the target of the redirect, I'd invite anyone to change where the redirect is pointing. And of course, feel free to merge any verifiable content from this article into other articles, as appropriate. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 04:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine (1793 ship)[edit]

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

Article was redirected to Catherine (ship), but this was reverted and article creator prefers AfD discussion instead.

No evidence of notability, sources are primary or databases and article is a lot of WP:OR parsing of confusing elements in the primary sources. No indication in article or sources that this ship was any more notable than the many thousand similar ones in the slave ship database. Inikori has no info on this ship, Richardson[23] is the only secondary source with some further information, but it is rather minimal anyway and not sufficient to support a stand-alone article. Fram (talk) 09:52, 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) 09:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia suffers from a MAJOR WP:RECENTISM problem. This is an article about a historic ship. Per WP:WHYN: We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources. Richardson is an WP:RS and its entry of the Catherine (1793 ship) is WP:SIGCOV. Note that Richardson's writing relies on no less than nine sources! The relative (!) length of the entry, compare to other entries, speaks to the importance of the ship. The fact that this entry was published about two centuries after the ship's launch, along with yet another reference from 1996, speaks to the increased interest in the slave trade in recent decades. gidonb (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User below made one good point about WP:RECENTISM. Please follow wikt:recentism instead. The rest are mischaracterizations. Luckily, I can stand a little heat! gidonb (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

((edit conflict)x2) Redirect to Catherine (ship). The above keep vote is based on some sort of bias towards older topics stemming from a fundamentally incorrect interpretation of what recentism is (Recentism is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events.), a strange form of original research in asserting "one book has a six sentence long entry, therefore I have concluded there is massive scholarly interest in this non-notable ship", and an appeal to emotion in saying "but the slave trade!!!!" I am thoroughly unconvinced. This does not meet GNG and should be redirected or selectively merged to the set index article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Richardson represents coverage in a reliable secondary source. There is no original research on my part. The original research is Richardson's; any confusion in the wording is my fault in trying to avoid quoting verbatim. What constitutes "significant" coverage is highly subjective. Richardson discusses her explicitly in two separate locations, in the first at some length, providing interesting information on the nature of manning problems and crew turnover. The information on the ambiguity in the number of captives is informative too; just because a datum is given to three significant digits does not meant that it is that accurate. Finally, Inikori is there to provide background. Unfortunately, he provides levels not rates, still, the levels provide some perspective. The relative importance of losses due to military action helps in understanding the risks and (implicitly) the profitability of enslaving in the run-up to the 1807 abolition of the trade.Acad Ronin (talk) 03:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Having happened in history is not the same as "historic", which means "well-known or important in history." Having been briefly covered in a book as part of a directory of hundreds of ships doesn't make it well known or important. This publication appears to list every known ship of this Bristol era without distinguishing which were particularly important. I would support something like List of Empire ships (A) for these, but I don't see justification for stand-alone articles. Reywas92^Talk 04:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that Richardson covers voyages, and there is no reason in this context, to feature one voyage over another. That is up to the reader, depending on their interest: mortality rates among captives or crew, duration of voyages, outcomes (misadventure or capture), profitability, ownership and relations between owners, revolts among the captives, and possibly other interests I have not run across. Voyages per vessel, however, range between one to perhaps more than a dozen. What an article does is link the voyages, provide information about origins and fates when voyages do not encompass them, add in other roles that the vessel may have had (warship, whaler, or merchantman), and provide background and context. Acad Ronin (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Richardson devotes 2 paragraphs to the ship. At the very least, redirect to Catherine (ship). 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I was coming here to save it, but not the most salubrious of histories. scope_creep^Talk 00:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is the very reason we need to keep the articles on the enslaving ships. That way readers can readily find out about the roles of the Liverpool, Bristol, and London in the trans-Atlantic enslaving trade, and the realities of the trade. Acad Ronin (talk) 03:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:RGW and reconsider this stance, as it is contrary to the role of Wikipedia as a neutral resource which is based on secondary sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not your personal platform to mass-create non-notable ship stubs because you think it somehow informs people about the slave trade. We happen to have an articles such as Slave trade, Triangular trade, and Atlantic slave trade which cover this. If you think it's so important we know about certain cities, you could make artic... oh wait, there's already Bristol slave trade and Liverpool slave trade, both of which contain a thousand times more useful information than every single one of your ship stubs combined! It's almost like this is a pointless exercise on your part. Maybe contribute to those articles instead of just scraping databases. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The slave trade is part of history and, OBJECTIVELY, in recent decades receives increased attention. As an encyclopedia, we follow and reflect scholarship AT LARGE and should not hide histories because of the inconvenience that some readers may experience. gidonb (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- And the relevance of this comment for this WP:AFD is...? Reads like a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS comment. Fram (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire, I suggest following scholarship wherever it may lead and however inconvenient for whatever party. Moving away from the touchy feel I'm inconvenienced so we cannot have this. (Same by the way with sources, it's my constant theme, many times over!) This is why OBJECTIVELY was in all caps. Next time, I will also make it bold ;-) gidonb (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No relevance then, just insinuating that people who want to delete or redirect this somehow are people who experience inconvenience at being reminded that slavery was a large, inhuman industry for England (and other countries). Nice way to post personal attacks in the guise of a comment. Really helpful. Fram (talk) 09:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe folks are sensitive to how other readers may perceive our articles. I do not know. I do know that, OBJECTIVELY, it has been suggested above that the topic of the slave trade is already "covered". Being sensitive to, for example, history and to how others may perceive articles certainly has its functions. I went through this in my early days on Wikipedia when I insisted and achieved that the Holocaust would be included in the history section of the Germany country article. It was not there and there were VERY STRONG resentment and edit-warring from the editors who controlled the article and demanded that it would stay out of the country article. Having feelings is human. Our sensitivity to these feelings though isn't how we should create or delete articles. We should follow science and the sources wherever they lead! If a slave ship meets the WP:GNG it should be kept, and if not it should be deleted. My call is extremely relevant for a sensitive topic! gidonb (talk) 10:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, having an article on this ship because it has two short (one very short even) sections in one local book is comparable to including the Holocaust in the Germany article. OBJECTIVELY I should add, to make it true. You believe this meets the GNG, I don't, perhaps we can leave it at that and don't try to present one side as the sensitive ones and the others as the inconvenienced ones? Such comments don't help in collaborating, most people don't like being painted as slavery-defending for bringing to AfD many non-notable ships, some of them slavers, others merchants or whalers (oh right, I'm probably inconvenienced by such articles as they are essential for the understanding of colonialism and climate change). Your posts are simply offensive. Fram (talk) 10:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can also be defending the feelings of others or there may be absolutely no connection. I make only a general call for objectivity around these subjects. You are offended by your own incorrect frame of my comment. It's a choice you made. The source is solid and substantial and is based on nine earlier sources! gidonb (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps just refrain from speculating on the motives of others, it is very rarely a productive or positive contribution to make. And please, please, use "show preview" more often instead of making countless corrections to your posts every single time, it only creates annoying edit conflicts. Fram (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My call is for objectivity. I accept that frequent changes can be annoying. gidonb (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This argument collapses under the slightest scrutiny. You bring up the example of Germany not covering the Holocaust, which is clearly a blatant oversight that needed to be remedied. But that has zero relation to this ship stub. The correlation would be, do the articles on the cities and the U.K. cover the slave trade? And as I said above, there are entire articles dedicated to the slave trade in several cities, and the U.K. article says Britain played a leading part in the Atlantic slave trade, mainly between 1662 and 1807 when British or British-colonial Slave ships transported nearly 3.3 million slaves from Africa. You don't have a valid point, so you attack and cast aspersions towards other editors ("You are offended... it's a choice you made") and then coach it as "I want objectivity!" or "I am following the science!" Seemingly every AfD you participate in you cannot help but cast aspersions towards others. Either you implicitly accuse those with differing views of bias ("As an encyclopedia, we follow and reflect scholarship AT LARGE and should not hide histories because of the inconvenience that some readers may experience"), or explicitly accuse others of bias or malpractice. Examine your own behavior, instead, because it's part of why AfD is so toxic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is the typical GidonB behaviour when when then the editor comments are put under scrutiny. It happens all the time. I don't know times in the last year have I seen this behaviour. scope_creep^Talk 18:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly reminder that the topic is Catherine (1793 ship), not this or that user whose contributions are then chopped up and remixed to assign them positions they do not hold. gidonb (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The refs offer WP:SIGCOV. Desertarun (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about an actual argument, instead of copy-pasting the same messages on every AfD involving your friend's articles? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am copying this exactly from my comment just now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisa (1798 ship), where there happens to have been less !voting so far, but the nomination is identical. My comment applies exactly here, too: 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) 21:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. And I appreciate User:Gidonb's restrained replies to what appears to me to be incivility above. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 00:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It reminds me of an old debate trick. You say blue. Another party would say: you have accused me of red and now you have insulted me. However, I only express my own opinions. I do not define others and others do not define me. Definitely not with chopped up quotes that assign me the opposite positions versus my own. If you argue, the entire page becomes about you, which defies my goal that we concentrate on the data. So best to let go. gidonb (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to concentrate on the data, then don't bring up what you believe others feel or may have as reason to vote one way or another. NIce attempt at WP:GASLIGHTING anyway. Fram (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two new frames. Why not? Keep it coming! gidonb (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another empty "Keep" vote by Doncram in a WP:HOUNDing spree. I hope the closing admin gives this the weight it deserves.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion instead of constant fighting over slave-ship stubs, how about a general article on Bristol as a key hub of the slave trade which could then accommodate a comprehensive list of Bristol ships and a summary of their voyages? Mccapra (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Fram (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Bristol slave trade? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah great - it already exists. I managed not to find it this morning. So my suggestion is to add a table to this with details of some of the more notable ships, rather than having a separate stand-alone article in each one. Mccapra (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support for such tables but not instead of articles on individually notable ships. If these can better tie topics together, create overviews, and assist in navigation, that would be great! gidonb (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think a separate list article, List of British slave ships, might be a better way to display the information. We could also have List of French slave ships, etc. We already have List of slave ships, but I think this is too broad. Of course, we can also still have articles on the notable ships as well. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At least Remove as a separate article -- Enormous amounts of research have bene done on the slave trade. This is incorporated in certain databases. I know they exist, but I have not studied them. However they are clearly a RS, being the result of academic research. There must have been 1000s of such ships. I do not think 99% of them will be individually notable enough to warrant its own article. We might have a series of list articles on voyages from London, Bristol, Liverpool, Lyme Regis, etc, probably broken down by decade. On the other hand, why should WP only do this for slave ships; why not East Indiamen; those trading to the Baltic, America, direct to West Indies, Russia, Spain, Levant, other Mediterranean ports; etc etc. Such a project could be undertaken, but the quantity of material will be colossal. We regularly delete articles on local churches and other topics because they are not separately notable; and the same principle should apply here. Today we regard the slave trade as reprehensible (and I agree). It was only in the second half of the 18th century, that anyone started questioning it, leading to a long campaign for abolition, first of the trade and then of slavery itself. Far too much commentary is looking at the past from a modern point of view, which is a back to front approach to history. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources here, and on other slave ship articles, are primary. The second non-primary source (Inikori) does not appear to be specific to this ship. The Richardson book is "Printed for the Bristol Record Society, [Bristol, England]" so that is not entirely an independent source. (Does the "c/o Department of Historical Studies, Univ. of Bristol" mean that is the lending library? If so, that does not belong in the citation.) I am unable to find a digital copy of it to view the contents so I can't see what sources it makes use of. Searching on 'Catherine' in the HathiTrust versions of Richardson (searchable but not viewable) does give results but they could be a person rather than the ship. None of the page numbers that I find correspond to the ones listed here. My gut feeling is that these articles are Original Research based on primary sources and therefore do not merit WP articles. There already is a database of the slave ships, and it doesn't make sense for WP to repeat that information. Turning those data points into sentences is the very definition of OR. Lamona (talk) 04:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a classic redirect. There is not enough in the source to to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 18:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that a publication from a historical society or university is not an independent source is really strange! Unless it writes PR about itself or its affiliates, or is from a (brutal) dictatorship, the publications of a regular research organization should be considered independent. gidonb (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I probably worded that wrong, but it depends on what they are publishing, and since I can't get into the documents it's hard for me to know. If they are publishing the contents of the archive, then it's like a catalog of an auction, even if it contains some descriptive text. If the book draws on sources outside of the archive and makes some new knowledge out of the data, then it's an independent source. "Bristol Record Society" sounds to me like a data archive, and a look at its publications gives me the impression that they are part transcriptions/publications of archival material, and part historical writing. I wish I could see this particular work. Lamona (talk) 06:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No no no. Consensus among keep and delete sayers alike (rare on this page!) is that this is an independent, reliable, secondary source, citing 9 earlier sources. The discussion is really if the source is extensive enough. The source is linked in the intro. Bristol Record Society is a historical society. As you were the first to point out, it seems to operate out of the history department of Bristol University. gidonb (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So if we take Richardson as a reliable and independent source, then you've got ONE such source. The remainder seems to be lists and a database in which this ship (or ship's voyage) is listed - essentially one entry that gives the name and a few facts, not different from any other ship. I have sympathy for the suggestions that individual voyages should not have their own articles. I haven't looked at the ship itself to understand if there are sufficient sources. Lamona (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NP. Per WP:WHYN: We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources. This is not an article about a voyage and looking at the ship is highly recommended. It is what this article is about. gidonb (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as there does not seem to be enough WP:SIGCOV to warrant an independent article. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - we have only one RS with significant coverage. A new article can be spun off if other significant coverage is found. Springnuts (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: per above. Subject lacks RS with substantial and in depth coverage to justify an article. // Timothy :: talk 09:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as above, unless an additional source appears. It's clear the Bristol slave trade is notable, but not this particular ship. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:27, 1 March 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) 02:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of wedding chapels in Las Vegas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There are only 5 wikilinks on this list, and historically, this article has been used for little other than wedding chapel spam (websites and phone numbers). There is no additional value to this article existing that isn't already provided by Category:Wedding chapels in the Las Vegas Valley. I believe this criteria is a little too specific for a standalone list at this time, if there are only 5 notable wedding chapels in the Las Vegas area. Phuzion (talk) 07:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading. There hasn't been any spam added for years. If it was a problem, IP addresses and new accounts could be stopped from editing. Not a valid reason to delete something, regardless. Dream Focus 14:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are seven entries now, with information in tables about it. Lists are far more useful than categories. No reason not to have both. Dream Focus 13:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lorstaking (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lorstaking Friendly reminder: WP:AFDNOTAVOTE - can you add a rationale to your vote? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced list that in the current form fails WP:LISTN. How is this more valid than the list of restaurants or junkyars in Lss Vegas? WP:INDISCRIMINATE fail. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because everything on the list has its own article. Thus it aids in navigation, and offers far more information than a category thus is more useful. We do have Category:Lists of restaurants by city which includes List of restaurants in the Las Vegas Valley. Dream Focus 12:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only the first 6 or so have articles, the rest of them don't. That's the issue here. It's basically a Yellow Pages directory, with a few having articles. Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See wp:CLNT on how categories, lists, navigation templates are complementary. Roughly: if there's a category there can be a list, which can include redlink items supported by references, photos, former examples, lesser examples not needing articles, more. This is a famous-type topic, too. I'd be interested in seeing photo gallery of many weddings in progress of famous or drunk people. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 01:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:It seemed odd the list was so short. In fact 10 wedding chapels were deleted just before the AFD was opened, with edit summaries perhaps suggesting they were unsourced. Most were in fact external links, i.e. sourced. I restored all. I haven't verified them, but i expect they are all bona fide wedding chapels in Las Vegas (well as bona fide as fake-type churches in Las Vegas can be.) The list should not be limited to only those having separate articles. The notability of the topic is partly the fact that there are so many of them, as well as fact that many are probably cheesy and fake and not-likely-to-be-well documented!

FYI i hate it when an editor strips down an article and then nominates it for deletion. If u think content is crummy please leave it in and state ur opinion, let others judge. Here, it was not exactly that: one editor stripped it down , then another nominated it. With partial justification that it seemed too short! --Doncram (talk,contribs) 06:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed them because of WP:LISTCOMPANY/WP:LISTORG. Philipnelson99 (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I restored them because IMHO it is absurd to delete them. The article is about wedding chapels in Las Vegas, it says it is a list of them, so it should list them. There may well be more than 17 or however many are in the article now, but I doubt there are more than 50 currently and in the past, say, a finite number, and they can certainly all be listed.

The removal edit summary stated "Every city has wedding chapels, we can't list them all. If they don't have a Wikipedia article then they shouldn't be listed. The rules are clear enough". I was starting to say that is ridiculous, but I suppose it is not ridiculous if you are completely unfamiliar with the topic of wedding chapels in Las Vegas. Probably half the world or more is not. But I am in the half that is aware of them, and I am aware of movies with Elvis impersonators parachuting out of airplanes in Las Vegas and lots more. Please see the article wedding chapel for a brief intro to the topic of Las Vegas ones. Further, I can't think of any standalone wedding chapels anywhere else in the world, at all. If you are aware of the phenomenon and how unique/rare it is, then the edit summary islam ridiculous. This is the only list of wedding chapels in Wikipedia and it will probably remain so; there is no danger of others growing rampantly. About "the rules are clear enough", I suppose that refers to the rules for list-item notability for this page, which, as for other list-articles per policies/guidelines, is to be determined by editors at its Talk page. I think it is worthwhile to have some discussion here during this AFD, to establish a rough consensus and avoid having a 3rd AFD, but after the AFD is closed (keep of course) discussion on fine points should continue there (and please ping me).

About wp:LISTCOMPANY I guess I read that completely opposite to how User:Philipnelson99 does. That states (in entirety):

A company or organization may be included in a list of companies or organizations whether or not it meets the Wikipedia notability requirement, unless a given list specifically requires this. If the company or organization does not have an existing article in Wikipedia, a citation to an independent, reliable source should be provided to establish its membership in the list's group.

In my view that is a clear statement that the other wedding chapels can be included. Its last assertion, that independent sourcing should be provided to establish membership, must mean that in many/most cases it would be nice to have citations, but it cannot be read IMHO to dictate that an item (no matter how well-known its membership is) absolutely must have a citation or police-persons are empowered to punish miscreant editors etc... IMHO in practice it means that the items can be tagged "citation needed" if you actually seriously disbelieve they are wedding chapels in Las Vegas. I may be farther out here than other editors, but I believe you should jolly well perform wp:BEFORE before you add "citation needed" tags in this case. And if you can assert you performed a decent search and failed to find support for their existence, only then can you remove them from the list-article, and if you do you must place them onto the talk page for further review by others. Otherwise, your participation is just not constructive, in my personal opinion. Anyhow, the guideline is clear that these can be included one way or another, tagged or not. About wp:LISTORG, oh I see that is an alternate shortcut to the same statement.

To go further: IMHO the list is bogus if it does not include substantially all the members of the group. By the title of the page, Wikipedia editorship is saying here we are presenting the list of these, not "here we are presenting a list of, strangely, some but not others in this finite set". To delete some is to push the list towards being obviously bogus in others' view, leading toward an AFD 3 and an AFD 4 etc. Just stop. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 06:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: You do realize that you restored pages that link to commercial sites into the article, right? I'm pretty sure that's not how WP:ELPOINTS works. I think there could be an argument for including a link to an external directory of wedding chapels in an External Links section on the page but I don't think directly linking to a chapel's page where they sell things is a good idea.

I have no opinion on deleting the article entirely, I think it could be merged but I don't plan to vote precisely because some might see it as bad faith on my part. They do not meet the independent requirement of WP:LISTCOMPANY, so I removed them. That was just my interpretation of the guideline and you clearly don't read it the same as I do. Philipnelson99 (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, per wp:ELPOINTS "With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.[2] Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable." wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP however, so that is not relevant for this AFD. Nonetheless I may convert some of them to inline citations.

It seems to me that in this case in Wikipedia, a link to a commercial website is sufficient. It reliably establishes wedding-chapel-ness and Las Vegas location. While there's possibility a chapel could go out of business so the info would not be current (though this list can/should include former examples IMO), I see no likelihood the info is completely false. Why would a business lie about whether it offers a service, or where its location is? Who would benefit from a completely false claim? So for this article I believe these are fine.

For what it's worth I added a TripAdvisor source (similarly reliable) and more chapels. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 21:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is ready to be closed (keep) tomorrow, day 7 from AFD opening. It wasn't required fOr AFD decision purposes IMHO, but the list-article has been developed and now no longer includes any external links. And discussion was started and continues at its Talk page on which items are to be included or not going forward. And i believe discussion there addresses some editor(s) gestalt-type reservations about this list-article. It would be helpful if the closer here could clarify for the record that a list of commercial places is certainly allowed to include commercial places in its list, in response to mentions of wp:LISTCOMPANY which is exactly on topic of when businesses can be included in a list. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 01:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment whilst one could clearly have lists like this for anything, it seems to me that there are grounds for saying wedding chapels in Vegas are more notable than, for example, dog groomers in La Rochelle. Because the chapels in Vegas are a noted, unusual phenomena. Isn't that what we should be assessing? JMWt (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This essay, albeit on a commercial website, is a pretty good expression of it all. There is more to develop in this list-article and the wedding chapel "parent" article about the phenomenon. I never myself understood what is the connection to Elvis, but just now reading this also-commercial site covering a number of movies, that there was in fact an Elvis-goes-to-Las-Vegas-and-i-think-gets-a-quickie-wedding movie. It is a big cultural thing.--Doncram (talk,contribs) 20:29, 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} 10:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete A list here is only useful if it points to articles in wiki; we aren't a phone book. When most of the chapels listed don't have wiki articles, I'm not seeing notability or the need for having a list. This would help navigation, if we had 20 wiki articles for each chapel; the first 5 or 6 have articles, then it's just a wall of text. Oaktree b (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One is demolished, one is on the NRHP, rest are iffy notability-wise. Famous person got married here, rest are just functioning businesses. Oaktree b (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the list, which can/should also cover any fictional wedding chapels in the numerous movies, is a great contribution. Currently the list includes mention of just one celebrity wedding, but if that makes such an impression we could surely serve up hundreds more. And personally i'd like to see links to the numerous movies. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 20:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree that fictional chapels be included on this list. There's no indication that the list covers fictional wedding chapels in Las Vegas at all. Also, please keep non-deletion related discussion on the list's talk page. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moot. There are no fictional wedding chapels in the list. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 09:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and Oaktree's point that most of the existing entries are just businesses and don't meet existing notability guidelines. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just want to note that earlier in this deletion discussion, I said I would not vote but the improvements to the list still have not changed my mind about if the list is worth keeping. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my position to Merge to Weddings in Las Vegas with the caveat that entries must be reliably and independently sourced or otherwise meet the notability criteria for companies or places. Philipnelson99 (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but limit to notable entries. I do believe WP:NLIST is not met, but lists that have a navigation purpose are still kept per policy (regardless if you think the entries aren't notable, the pages still exist; make another discussion). Has enough extra information in the tables to differentiate it from a category listing. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I happen to think that this link from the article to OSM map showing 15 locations currently is a good addition to the list-article. It simply shows there are a lot of them, most in one Las Vegas strip area. The list-article could be improved in lots of ways, including perhaps minimizing the "lesser" ones (but who judges which are lesser) while keeping them in to keep the map working. All the summaries could be improved. Whether the list should try to be comprehensive, i.e. per common selection criteria wp:CSC be a "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group", or whether it should be limited to only the subset that (randomly?) have separate articles is an issue for discussion at Talk page of the list-article. Discussion was opened there. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 09:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a WP:DIRECTORY of small, generic, not-individually-notable entities. Dronebogus (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

wp:NOTDIRECTORY is about the fact that Wikipedia need not post telephone numbers, opening hours etc., which has not been done. The phenomenon of "wedding chapels in Las Vegas" is a thing, a significant phenomenon in modern America (well, from the 1970s or so for a while, I don't know if it is continuing at the same level or not. Yes, the list-article should not unduly provide commercial advertising. However, the phenomenon is a cheesy commercial thing, and I personally think it is fine in this case to convey that. You and/or others might not grasp the minor sarcasm I put into some of my blurbs on wedding chapels; indeed that can be addressed by discussion at the talk page and editing. But the topic is the strange plethora of wedding chapels, and, barring some new consensus on where to draw the line which might emerge at the Talk page, it seems to me that avoiding selectivity and showing the numerosity of them is appropriate.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding afoot, too, an incorrect belief that every list-article must list only "individually-notable" topics having separate standalone articles. That is simple false. There's good reason not to promote creation of separate articles, and having a list-article enables Wikipedia to pare down separate articles and rather convey more information by presenting multiple items together on one page. The collection as a whole is the thing. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 23:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A topic being notable does mot make a list of examples of the topic notable. The rest of your above comment was gish galloping I’m not going to try and argue with. Dronebogus (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Dronebogus, but I don't see what essay, guide, or policy supports anything you say. You posted that wp:DIRECTORY was a reason. I go to that page (wp:NOT as a whole) and do not see see how wp:DIRECTORY applies, and say so. There is wp:NOTGUIDE subsection just after it, and I suspect that you might be referring to that, which is about not not reporting ephemeral stuff like prices and opening times.

You make new argument that "a topic being notable does not make a list of examples of the topic notable"... Okay well there are 5 or 6 examples that are apparently Wikipedia -separate-article-level notable, which can certainly be listed, right? In the wedding chapel's section on Las Vegas or split out into a separate article. And it is a matter of editors' discussing at the Talk page to decide about a lower level of notability for list-items not having separate articles, applying principles at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. Discussion was opened at Talk there; you have not commented. So much for your new argument.

Then you dismiss me for writing too much in your opinion, I guess, and you also post at my Talk page to chastise me, accusing me of wp:BLUDGEONing. I am aware that writing a lot in an AFD often does not work out well, and I generally don't, but here it seemed appropriate somehow to respond to arguments like yours that amount to wp:IDONTLIKEIT and provide no valid reasoning at all. Your effectively "IDONTLIKEIT" view seems like bludgeoning, using a blunt tool of your repetition to try to get your way. There is NO WAY in my view that it is valid to simply delete everything here, by any Wikipedia policy-based reasoning. There is room for editorial discussion about the list-article, yes. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 11:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They added their opinion to the AfD discussion, that's not bludgeoning. AfD is about consensus and you're effectively trying to overwhelm the conversation with walls of text that mean very little which is, by definition, bludgeoning. Philipnelson99 (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete Looks like a directory to me. Mangoe (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sufficient entries with articles, and it's a notable topic for a list ([24][25][26]). It could be limited to entries that link to an article, or merged to wedding chapel, but that's a content dispute and not a reason for deletion. Peter James (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful list which people will search for.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The few chapels with reliable, independent sources have their own articles. The remainder here link either to the web sites of the chapels or to non-RS sites like Trip Advisor and are clearly adverts for those businesses. If the non-RS, non-independent sources are removed, along with the content in the article they support, you are left with a list of 7 items. This is clearly an advertisement and inappropriate for WP. Lamona (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By "clearly adverts", do you mean the editor who added their mentions is working for them, or for pay somehow? I added them.

The sources are entirely reliable for establishing names of wedding chapels and their locations, information which has mostly been corroborated by Google Streetview in the process of obtaining coordinates.

So, wp:IDONTLIKEIT ?

Editing could be done to make the list of businesses seem less commercial somehow ...discuss at Talk... although it is a list of cheesy businesses.--Doncram (talk,contribs) 03:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TripAdvisor is not a reliable source. It is basically an advertising site. So that cannot be used as a source of information. Entries here that only are sourced to the chapel's own web site cannot remain as those are not independent sources. I see above that some of these were correctly deleted, but unfortunately added back. They should be deleted. I would do so but we're very close to an edit war on this page. Lamona (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good, please do not remove items. It is better for everyone in this AFD to be able to see and evaluate the whole list. I suggest that further education about these matters can continue after this AFD, but it also can be started now at the Talk page. You and me and most editors do not have experience in evaluating sources for the special circumstance of a list-article whose topic is a list of cheesy businesses which are famous as a group world-wide, but mostly not individually famous. Quick notes, though: wp:RS starts off with " Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process" and see its section wp:RSCONTEXT (aka wp:CONTEXTMATTERS).

We are not as far apart as you might think. I grant further that I happen to agree that TripAdvisor is not reliable for many/most things, like who is the actual owner of a business or when it actually started or even whether it is open at this hour. TripAdvisor and individual business' websites and yellowpages and billboards and ads run in newspapers or magazines do seem to be proof that a business has operated, however. It can be repeatedly verified, rather easily actually, by anyone that a given business service is operating or once operated. Again, discussion about which of various yellow pages type sources should be used to establish that businesses have existed (i.e., whether they have paid money to run ads), is separate issue from this AFD discussion. Thanks. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 19:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the TripAdvisor page - most of which is taken up with controversies and errors. I wouldn't count on it for anything. It's like IMDB in that way: it seems to have all the facts but it can't be considered reliable at any one moment in time. I also see no reason for WP to have addresses and other such information for a business. At best there is a link to the business's web page if it has one. See Microsoft, Alioto's. What makes this page look like a directory is that it has the elements of a directory rather than an encyclopedia. I see no reason to have a list of non-encyclopedic businesses. Presumably the ones with WP articles are notable and have suitable sourcing. But the others are not and should not be in WP until the sources exist. Lamona (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, this is precisely why this page doesn't fit wikipedia. At best there are no more than 7 chapels in las Vegas with notability and this list doesn't make sense with that few entries. It's literally an advertisement at this point. Philipnelson99 (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable topic per the above, editorial discussions can determine how much actual content information we want to include without being an ad venue. Jclemens (talk) 08:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list topic is notable, as is shown by a search in Google Books. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the wedding industry in Vegas is notable, but that doesn't mean we need a list of each chapel. The actually notable ones can and are discussed in the relevant articles. Tripadvisor, wedding planning packages as sources/ELs does not make them notable. Literally every business has one. Disclosure, I just removed a lot of this from the article as it was not helping notability. Star Mississippi 14:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More disclosure from me: I removed the Trip Advisor references - I just couldn't stand seeing them there. There only remains one possibly reliable reference (#1), the rest are links to the chapel's own web pages. And to Jclemens, if there are non-advert sources, please link to them. That's what we need. It would be easy to remove content from the article, the hard part is adding suitable, independent, reliable content. Lamona (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But of course the TripAdvisor "10 best" source was in fact the source for existence and names and addresses of a number of wedding chapels, so it is nonsensical and against numerous Wikipedia policies about sourcing to remove that. It is as if heads are popping with the idea that a commercial site can be a valid source ever, even for establishing that a commercial site exists (i.e. ads are being run for a wedding chapel is evidence about existence of a wedding chapel). Amazing but true. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 10:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An advertisement / commercial site is never a reliable source for establishing notability. Philipnelson99 (talk) 12:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said that it was. Neither i nor anyone else is trying to create separate articles for them, which would require Wikipedia notability standards for separate articles to be met. Let's agree to disagree otherwise about whether yellow pages etc are valid sources for different purposes, or whether wp:contextmatters is part of Wikipedia policy or not, okay? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 16:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge but not to Wedding chapel. I think a better target might be Las Vegas weddings, which already has a section for wedding chapels. I also recommend limiting it then to chapels that have WP articles, to avoid the list becoming a spammers' Paradise. Joyous! | Talk 17:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that there is such an article, and thank you for finding it User:Joyous!.

For purpose of this AFD, let me suggest we all just consider it obvious that "Las Vegas weddings" can be merged into "List of wedding chapels in Las Vegas", or vice versa. That is merely an editing matter, not for AFD. I understand this AFD to be about the question whether a list of wedding chapels can exist in Wikipedia in any form, or not (I have stated my position, which is yes, of course.) --Doncram (talk,contribs) 10:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More opinions are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is a notable albeit incomplete list.

LegalSmeagolian (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable list and there is significant coverage of the entries as a group, so it passes WP:NLIST. ~~I would not be opposed to merging some content with Las Vegas weddings, but that can be done via a discussion on the article talk pages and not through AFD.~~ Frank Anchor 04:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand there is notable coverage of Las Vegas wedding chapels as a group, I'm not sure that it warrants an entire list. There are a handful of chapels at best that are covered in multiple sources as a group. A list like this needs more than a handful to warrant the list's inclusion in wikipedia. Philipnelson99 (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per NLIST, The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable. Therefore it is acceptable to include this as a list even though there are several entries on it which are not notable for the purposes of having their own article. Frank Anchor 15:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure a standalone list serves more purpose than a category. This list is a WP:DIRECTORY and would only attract spam listings. I think keeping it rather than merging is too strong a position. Merging can be an outcome of an AfD per WP:AfD. Philipnelson99 (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that this list is a directory per User:Doncram's analysis above. There has been a minor problem with spam being added in the past few years, but the answer to the influx of spam is not deletion when there is notable content (per NLIST). The answer is possible page protection, which is not in the scope of an AFD discussion. Frank Anchor 16:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge notable examples into Las Vegas weddings. The current list is clearly a spam magnet or otherwise built with disregard for WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. It's sourced mostly to official websites, even quoting from them. I started just removing all the businesses without articles, but it only left a few which can simply be merged into the main LV weddings article. There's just no need to spin out the subtopic. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth the quoting from commercial websites did not exist prior to this AfD but the spam magnet issues did exist and have existed for quite some time. Philipnelson99 (talk) 13:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with merging it as long as those (presumably) notable seven venues are still listed (because lists and links are cool for a more navigable Wikipedia.) However, I do think that if the list ever grows to 10+, it should be split because it meets pretty much every requirement for a list (NLIST has been proven to be met and it has a recognized "navigational purpose" even if thought otherwise). Merging is just preventive to prevent it from becoming a directory with non-notables adding their business. That should not preclude there from being a list at all, though. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge notable instances to Las Vegas weddings per Rhododendrites above. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:36, 28 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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Robinson (baseball)[edit]

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

Fails GNG. No significant coverage beyond a listing of stats from his 3 games. Wes sideman (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How much searching did you do WP:BEFORE nominating this? Here's his obituary. It's not easy to find sources on him given the timeframe and his common name, but given that his brother is in the Hall of Fame, I'd be surprised if I couldn't find more if I put the time into it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Good grief, everyone gets an obituary; that's no more indicative of notability than a birth notice. If you believe that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources -- beyond casual mentions and namedrops -- provide the evidence. Nor does his brother being in the HOF matter worth a fig. That it's putatively hard to find such sources doesn't constitute a waiver of the GNG; it means that an article on the subject can't be sustained. Ravenswing 20:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ has played at the Majors level, which is sufficient for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I swear we used to have a criteria for WP:BASEBALL but I can't find it. Oaktree b (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted in the giant WP:NSPORTS2022 RfC which affirmed the requirement all athletes must meet GNG. NBASE never conferred notability anyway. JoelleJay (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, Oaktree b. That RfC closed over a year ago. Don't you think it's high time you acquainted yourself with the notability guidelines we have in place? Either you're ignorant of the guidelines or you're just plain deliberately defying them (and perhaps hoping that closing admins don't notice), and neither is a good look for someone for whom the overwhelming bulk of your recent contributions are at AfD, many sports ones among them. Ravenswing 05:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't kept up to date on all the minutiae here, it's a rather overwhelming process. Oaktree b (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that; you are of course the best judge of your own time and energies. But if you're not able to keep up with current notability standards, you shouldn't be voting in AfDs until you can ... and one would think that you'd at least strike positions based on outdated information, as in the case here. Ravenswing 19:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that comment was called for. Not everyone can keep up with every change to notability guidelines and it is easy for someone to miss the fact that a guideline has changed. It is not as if every change is broadcast widely in a manner that all editors can be instantly aware. Editors are permitted to participate in AfDs without checking every notability guideline every time. Rlendog (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never understand why "bite and berate" is ever considered a good strategy in this situation. Oaktree b's contributions to AfD are valuable. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 15:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't Bite the OG Editors" isn't yet a saying yet. Newbies, yeah don't bit them. The old farts, go ahead (sigh). I'm doing my best with the time I have, I haven't asked to become and Admin for that reason. I'm also active in other projects off-wiki, so I can't be here as often as I'd like. Oaktree b (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep With the obituary and the book mention below, I'm willing to give it a pass. Oaktree b (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And this [27] with his brother's weight and some other silly stats that baseball nuts like myself enjoy. We can infer stuff from here [28], his father was a butcher. Here's a family photo [29] Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cincinnati Outlaw Reds all-time roster. Very little WP:SIGCOV to justify an article, please ping me if more coverage is found. Frank Anchor 21:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep per Rlendog and Hatman31. However if consensus not to keep is found, I prefer redirect as an ATD. Frank Anchor 23:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. No SIGCOV identified. JoelleJay (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why not keep the history so it can be restored if sigcov is identified? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why keep the history when all it contains is three very brief sentences? JoelleJay (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because its easier than to have to recreate the sentences, source, infobox, and categories. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's a bio in this book which could be argued as sigcov (page 169). BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Frank Anchor: You requested to be pinged if any possible sigcov was found BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think the book entry you found and the newspaper entries found by Penale52 below fall a little short of GNG but it is certainly a start. Frank Anchor 11:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a 2-sentence baseball directory entry, not SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its 12.5 lines dedicated to him, not a "2-sentence baseball directory entry." BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to see more of the Frederic Robinson entry? All I can cobble together without page previews is the blurb on 169 sandwiching some semi-prosified stats, which obviously don't count:

Robinson, Frederic Henry "Fred"...[basic life metrics]...[baseball stats]
Debut: 4/17/84 at Cincinnati; played 2B and went 1-for-4 in a 7-2 win over Altoona's John Murphy
Finale: 4/19/84 at Cincinnati; played 2B and went 1-for-5 in a 9-6 win over Altoona's Jim Brown
Fred Robinson was the older brother of Hall of Famer Wilbert Robinson.

That's really only one prose sentence. JoelleJay (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see now, the snippet says 169 doesn't have a preview, but it does. The rest of the bio (coverage of him bolded) says

He is the only performer to participate in more than one ML game and play his entire career against only Altoona, the smallest city ever to field an ML team. After serving on the Cincinnati Union reserves in the preseason, he was inserted in the regular lineup but seemed nervous in his debut, muffing two easy pop flies. His play improved only marginally in the next two games. After Cincinnati's third game with Altoona, there was a five-day hiatus before the Outlaw Reds opened their second series of the season against Chicago. When the team next took the field in Cincinnati on April 24, Ri Jones was at 2B. Robinson returned to the reserves, but they were disbanded within a few days. In 1933 he was working as a janitor at a bank in Hudson, MA, when he suffered a heart attack while shoveling snow off the sidewalk outside the bank.

That's still barely anything; if that's the extent of all info on Robinson then there shouldn't be a standalone page on him. JoelleJay (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a few newspapers.com hits of Robinson. Two are from him signing with Cincinnati, and they mention he played for the Hudson club of Massachusetts, apparently as their captain. I didn't see much outside of boxscore recaps mentioning Robinson and his brothers for Hudson games pre-1884. But apparently they won a championship in 1880? Also found another write-up mentioning him in 1916. Penale52 (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the trouble is that none of that constitutes "significant coverage" of the subject. If casual namedrops in routine sports coverage sufficed -- which it explicitly does not -- every starter on a high school team in the United States would qualify for a Wikipedia article. I could, for instance, easily present multiple articles from daily newspapers giving similar coverage to a local sports figure; she's a 9th grader who plays on small town high school softball and volleyball teams in Massachusetts' most rural county, and whatever Madi's virtues, no one sane is championing her for a Wikipedia article any time soon. Ravenswing 05:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First of all, I disagree with the opinion that the bio in "The Rank & File" isn't SIGCOV - that guideline does not require coverage to be of any particular length, just that it "addresses the topic directly and in detail", which the author does in this case. Second, while none of the newspaper articles are especially in depth, NBASIC says that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"; while the second part of that guideline disqualifies "trivial" coverage from establishing notability, as I said above, I believe the "Rank & File" bio is nontrivial, so both parts of NBASIC are met, meaning this article narrowly passes Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. That said, if consensus is that it doesn't, I would support a redirect to the page suggested by Frank Anchor as an ATD. Hatman31 (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hatman31, even if you consider that source to be GNG-contributing, NSPORT and GNG still require multiple such sources, and NBASIC wouldn't be met either since it's just the one "good" source + trivial routine mentions. JoelleJay (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that interpretation of NBASIC. If that's how it's intended to be read, it contradicts itself. Hatman31 (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How? NBASIC explicitly discounts trivial coverage, so you have to find sources that are somewhere in between "trivial" and "significant". JoelleJay (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what is relevant into his brother's article at Wilbert_Robinson#Family. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if not notable, should be redirected to his brother's article, which has information about him. And no need to use the delete button before redirecting, tin case more information about him becomes available. Rlendog (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I was on the fence. But he has coverage which, especially considering the vintage (and the fact that most reliable sources that may have provided coverage are now lost or at least difficult to find) I am willing to consider significant enough. I will make 2 other points. While I agree with Ravenswing's analysis of Penale's sources that similar coverage of a high school player would not be significant coverage, playing for a Major League team is far more "significant" than playing for a high school team. Even if we discount those, there is still at least the obituary and the and the Rank & File coverage. And I'll note that the obituary - from 1933 and thus almost a century closer to the subject than we are - states explicitly that the subject "achieved noteriety", and I would trust a 1933 newspaper on that point more than our subjective judgments (and I realize that the newspaper is not necessarily applying Wikipedia notability guidelines, which of course did not exist then, but is trying to make a similar point). In any case, as per my earlier comment, if not kept it should be merged or redirected to his brother's article. Rlendog (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rlendog, the obituary is not independent and so cannot count towards GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay: What is your basis for saying that? Rlendog (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I think Rlendog makes a pretty good argument. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:09, 23 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Timothytyy (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A drive into deep left field by Castellanos[edit]

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

I was in two minds about bringing this straight to AfD without discussing it elsewhere first, but since the article is in line to make a DYK appearance I think it's in everyone's interest to get a quick consensus on this.

In the first place, I'm not sure whether this article is about the meme or the incident that led to it. If it's about the meme, as the title would suggest, then I don't see any convincing evidence that this is a notable topic. Aside from the long Ringer article, I can't find any detailed discussion of the meme in reliable sources; at best I find a few articles on particular instances of it, eg. [30], [31], but I wouldn't call these significant coverage because they don't provide anything in the way of useful information for our purposes.

If the article is about Brennaman's apology and the reactions to it, then I don't see any reason to spin this out from Thom Brennaman#Suspension for on-air comments, because as far as I can tell, that section relates all the pertinent facts without being undue in the context of the article. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Internet. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to Thom Brennaman#Suspension for on-air comments. No independent notability from Thom Brennaman, whose article already covers the incident. It being a niche meme with very limited sourcing independent of the subject doesn't mean it deserves its own article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thom Brennaman#Suspension for on-air comments, where this can be discussed in a wP:DUEWEIGHT manner. I don't believe there's a convincing rationale for a separate article on this topic. Hog Farm _Talk 22:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thom Brennaman#Suspension for on-air comments. The content is already there, and there's nothing about this incident that is weighty enough for a stand-alone article. Joyous! | Talk 23:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes GNG and NEVENT. SIGCOV in Ringer article, New York magazine article, Sports Illustrated article that covers the incident and Brennaman's apology as a prelude to Nick Castellanos' role in the meme, Arizona PBS discusses the incident as a prelude to discussion increased scrutiny of sports announcers, for some reason Golf Digest talked about the meme in regards to Castellanos, an in depth article in Baseball Prospectus about this incident and its role in LGBTQ acceptance in MLB baseball. These articles show WP:LASTING (event led to memes, copypasta, and increased scrutiny of announcers), WP:GEOSCOPE (articles come from local and national publications), WP:DEPTH (see above), WP:PERSISTENCE (many of these articles were written months after the incident), WP:DIVERSE (some articles talk about the incident and the memes it created, some talk about the incident and homophobia, some talk about the incident and how it's affected Brennaman). Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 23:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bait30: Could you clarify whether you are arguing for the notability of the meme or the incident? If the meme, do you believe that the sources you've linked here contain enough useful information to write more than a paragraph or two on the subject (per WP:WHYN)? Or if the incident, could you explain why you think this information should be spun off into a standalone article rather than covered in a section at Thom Brennaman (see WP:NOPAGE)? Thanks. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't live in a vacuum; the incident and the meme are intertwined. (well I guess technically the earth is in space and space is a vacuum) Per WHYN, Editors may decide that it is better for readers to present a narrow subject as part of a broader one. Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 17:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To my mind, that means including a few sentences about the meme at Thom Brennaman#Suspension for on-air comments, as indeed that section already does. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How would you incorporate [32], [33], and [34] into the Thom Brennaman article? Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 00:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as a sub-section into a dedicated section or page on the suspension of Brennaman, as this is not really independent from the overall event. BhamBoi (talk) 06:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Bait30; there is some notability and WP:SIGCOV. However, I also support redirecting to to Thom Brennaman#Suspension for on-air comments. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 08:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bait30; the Ringer article in particular is clear, strong SIGCOV. The article could stand to be clarified that it is about the meme and not the incident, but that is an editing issue and not a deletion issue. Note: The New York Magazine link above is incorrect, [this https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/06/enough-with-the-backlash-over-harmless-broadcaster-gaffes.html] is the article mentioned. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bait30. starship .paint (exalt) 08:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above... the title is a phrase with little meaning on it's own.. the subject is covered enough on the Brennaman article. Spanneraol (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article's content is about more than just what's described at Brennaman's article, with a focus on the event and ensuing meme rather than Bernnaman himself. Merging all of this content to Brennaman's article would be undue and so a violation of the NPOV policy. Redirecting it without merger or deleting it would remove a significant amount of verifiable and notability-conferring coverge. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tamzin. There's also articles from years afterwards that note how people have kept using the meme, and used "Castellanoed" as a verb, and other instances of Castellano home-runs interrupting serious segments. [35][36][37][38]. All of this coverage is very much something more than just coverage of the original broadcaster who made the apology and would be undue to include that material there. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I remain sceptical that a full article could be written on the subject of the meme based on the sources available, once the trivia has been filtered out. To take the first source in your list, all it tells us is that the Pittsburgh Pirates made a reference to the meme on Twitter, a fact that would be undue for inclusion in any article.
Per WP:WHYN: If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page. The article currently contains four sentences on the subject of the meme; I haven't seen any evidence that much more than this could be written. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 07:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since this article is about a meme, which is literally defined by repeated use and imitation by others, I would have to disagree. I see this as similar to how articles on military equipment, would list major users such as national armies, police, but except in exceptional circumstances (e.g. very high profile crimes), individual users wouldn't be listed. So social media posts by random individuals would be undue, but major baseball orgs like the Pirates using a baseball meme in an article about a baseball meme is fine to at least briefly mention.

I also disagree with your assessment of how much material there is on the meme, which is only true if you use the most restrictive definition of "subject of the meme". How an article subject came to be, as long as it's proximate enough, is generally considered part of the content. In any case, the sources I gave, as well as some material at the Castellanos and Brennaman pages which is surprisingly not in this article could easily be added. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seeking consensus for either keep or redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets GNG as a standalone event and meme as demonstrated by Bait30, while Tamzin and Patar knight demonstrate that this is a standalone topic from Thom Brennaman#Suspension for on-air comments. All three points of WP:NOTMERGE apply. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 05:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge [if necessary] and Redirect - There's almost nothing in this article that isn't already in the Brennaman article, and it's also present (in less detail) in the Castellanos article. The question of whether it's notable enough for Wikipedia is a question of whether we should cover it on Wikipedia, not necessarily whether it needs a stand-alone article (WP:NOPAGE). As it stands, it's effectively a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. I suppose a big question would be whether the content in the Breenaman article could be significantly cut (i.e. whether it merits spinning out a new article), but it seems like a major event of his career that deserves some extra space. A few sources like those listed here justify the extra space in his article, not hosting the same content in two places. I'd probably reconsider if someone had an argument to trim the Brennaman article's content down to a single paragraph or so. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Bait30, meets WP:SIGCOV since it there are both regional and national news sources covering it (ex. Cincinnati Enquirer and New York Times) and sports authorities (ex. ESPN). Castellanos also recently referenced the incident in an Instagram post leading to additional coverage by Sports Illustrated Cassd99 (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject has sufficient WP:SIGCOV to establish notability, satisfying WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. Shawn Teller (talk) 04:16, 28 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. Joyous! | Talk 04:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Tirandasu[edit]

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

No notability at all. Sources copied from Jagadeesh Prathap Bandari and Anvesh Michael articles. Most sources do no mention his name. This article has a promotional tone. DareshMohan (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 05:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 14:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:GNG, probably WP:TOOSOON. QueerEcofeminist🌈 17:56, 22 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Porteus[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO for lack of coverage. Unclear if he meets WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Psychology, Australia, and Hawaii. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 05:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, it's always difficult to establish whether people from previous centuries meet NPROF, when the definitions of named chairs have changed over the years, and publication habits are so different. I'd keep because I think the positions he held are analogous to a named chair, satisfying NPROF. But also from the reader's perspective, this is valuable background information for the Porteus Maze test, but putting in too much of the background of the inventor would, I think, detract from the article on his invention. Yes, it'd be really good to have more sourcing, but that's the perennial difficulty with pre-internet academics, and I hate the idea of losing everything that happened before 1980! Elemimele (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am finding a wealth of sources with a search of google books. I have expanded the article today with information from the Australian Dictionary of Biography and The Professional Life and Work of Stanley D. Porteus: A Report on the Proposed Renaming of Porteus Hall, which was previously included as an external link. The article as nominated certinaly needed (and still needs) additional sources and could use some reorganization. It could use a far more detailed and nuanced discussion of his work and the blatantly racist and eugenicist nature of it, as well as the continued use of the Maze test today. However, the sources are out there. Someone just needs to do the work. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was extremely surprised to see someone at AfD who a) has a still-used method named after them, b) had a building named after them, and c) got news coverage about their racist/eugenicist work that prompted the building being renamed, but I didn't have time to find sources earlier. Thanks to ONUnicorn for doing that work. It's clear he passes both WP:NBIO and WP:NPROF. -- asilvering (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 14:49, 22 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of ancient Chinese[edit]

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

Redundant to Category:Lists of Chinese people. This page should be redirected to the category. We don't have a Lists of Chinese people, so why should we have Lists of ancient Chinese? Plus, "ancient China" is a very vague time period anyways, so if we are to have something like this, it should be at Lists of Chinese people. And, most of the lists listed on this aren't even exclusively ancient (List of Chinese monarchs, List of Confucianists, and List of Taoists). Mucube (talk • contribs) 03:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Lists, and China. Mucube (talk • contribs) 03:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article was created in 2005, when standards were different. It doesn't belong here anymore. -- asilvering (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Category:Lists of Chinese people. Unneeded, vague list that just duplicates this category. MaterialWorks _(talk) 11:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Previous AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ancient Chinese. Pinging participants and closer from that discussion: @Liz, Mucube, WngLdr34, Tutwakhamoe, Elinruby, and LaundryPizza03: —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lists of Chinese people might be acceptable, but not this poorly-defined index — do we mean Imperial China, or before Shihuangdi? — where some lists overlap with modern China. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:56, 21 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 List of Emmerdale characters (2007). Went ahead and WP:BOLDLY merged to suggested/obvious target since redirection (the overall consensus) is impossible without it. (non-admin closure) Dronebogus (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Potts[edit]

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

Article only cites six sources, of which, 4 are from the same website, and one is primary. Essentially, fails WP:GNG. (Oinkers42) (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. AllyD (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Consistency. Either we keep all Category:Emmerdale characters or delete most of them. He was a major character. Nominating these characters individually is not helpful. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:ALLORNOTHING. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It makes absolutely no sense to nominate a single article in a series for deletion. I'm not saying that articles on soap characters are especially valuable, but what is certainly not valuable is nominating them for deletion piecemeal. And where on earth does WP:NOTINHERITED come into it? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Dronebogus (talk) 11:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Completely missing the point by quoting dogma. Sad, but par for the course these days. Never mind. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is that even supposed to mean? Your “arguments” have been consistently bad and based on arguing around the main topic; what “point” is there to miss? Dronebogus (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list of characters from that show, the reception section is very weak, a mention in passing. And I concur that the "argument" above by Necrothesp is just NOTINHERITED. It makes perfect sense to discuss each article, one by one, as some may prove to be salvageable. Even this - if someone finds sources (and if so, ping me and I'll reconsider my vote). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Which part of my argument is WP:NOTINHERITED? I'm not saying he's notable because the series he appears in is notable. I'm saying that it makes no sense to nominate an article on one major character for deletion when there are articles on dozens of other major characters who are no more (or less) notable. I favour consistency, as benefiting Wikipedia, and this is not a consistent approach. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect there’s no good reason to keep this unless some evidence of notability is provided. Redirection is a simple solution in most situations like this involving fictional entities that are not individually notable but are still plausible search terms. Necrothesp keeps bludgeoning this fairly obvious case with off-topic nonsense arguments. Dronebogus (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect "All or nothing" arguments make no sense since it can potentially result in a WP:TRAINWRECK. It is very clearly non-notable and should be redirected. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Dronebogus & Zxcvbnm above. RobinCarmody (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Zxcvbnm. This character has no evidence of notability, and the others can be assessed individually. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a consensus to Reidrect this article but no target article has been identified or agreed upon. This discussion will be closed soon after that step is taken here. Please remember when you argue for a Merge or Redirect to always specify the target article you are proposing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When redirected it should be redirected to List of Emmerdale characters (2007)#Douglas Potts. Storylines and sourced info can be salvaged onto that list. – Meena • 10:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Emmerdale characters (2007)#Douglas Potts as suggested by Meena, as the most appropriate target for the Redirect. To address Necrothesp's concerns, perhaps we can use this AFD's obvious consensus as a precedent to just WP:BOLDly redirect all other articles for this series' characters with the same issues to their appropriate character lists without the need for a discussion for each one. Rorshacma (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that "section" of the article is just a link to this article so it would be a circular redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then obviously this has become a merge situation Dronebogus (talk) 11:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, a very Light Merge would need to be carried out, in this case, to resolve that. Rorshacma (talk) 18:11, 23 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 PERP and 1E. Courcelles (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ng Beng Kee[edit]

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

Fails WP:PERP, also WP:ONEVENT. As per similar recent AfDs on drug smugglers. LibStar (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thought WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk · contribs) was going to combine these articles together? Elinruby (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable for more than one event: drug smuggling, arrest, prosecution, execution. This is a bit like saying delete Madonna as she is only notable for singing, or delete Pele as he's only notable for football. CT55555(talk) 02:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"drug smuggling, arrest, prosecution, execution" it's all related to drug smuggling. also clearly fails WP:PERP. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. WP:PERP says we should only create an article if the "motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual". This is a newsworthy event, and the largest ever heroin seizure the country. I think that meets the definition of "unusual". I cannot reconcile that with "clearly" failing the guideline.

Additionally, the idea that WP:ONEEVENT scope is to include being notable for lots of connected events would exclude most people's notability, most sports people, most performers, more politicians. If we are only to include in the encyclopaedia people who are doubly famous for two unrelated things, that would eliminate about 99% of the biographies on here. Joe Biden is only notable for events connected to politics. Being only notable for connected events is way more than guidelines attempts to exclude. CT55555(talk) 19:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Biden, Pele and Madonna are clearly notable by the 1000s (if not tens of thousands) pieces of significant coverage. To compare Ng Beng Kee to these 3 people is ludicrous. LibStar (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But they are notable for things that are all related. And yet we see clearly that isn't an issue, because there is enough coverage of different events about the same connected thing. That's my point. And it's not "ludicrous" to compare them, the logic is the same, even though I've obviously used blatant examples to emphasize the point. CT55555(talk) 20:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Straits Times articles report only the bare facts of the case. Fails WP:PERP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceThomson (talk • contribs) 03:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. biggest heroin seizure in Singaporean history by a long shot, maybe change the title to "1982 Apollo Hotel heroin seizure" to focus on the event instead of making it a bio ? some tidy up needed of course — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk • contribs) 08:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 31 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) 01:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep.~~ biggest heroin seizure in Singaporean history, can maybe change the title to "1982 Apollo Hotel heroin seizure" to focus on the event instead of making it a bio of Ng Beng Kee — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk • contribs) 15:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

struck out duplicate !vote. LibStar (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sorry thought i had a new vote 13:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC) WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 13:35, 8 February 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)} 03:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clear failure of WP:CRIME and WP:BIO1E, and as there is no indication the event Kee received a brief bout of coverage for has been the subject of any lasting coverage it does not deserve an article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. even though it is the largest amount seized thus far, the rest of the content doesn't really warrant an article, and that statement can be taken out and be placed in Capital punishment in Singapore or Misuse of Drugs Act (Singapore) or a consolidated article. – robertsky (talk) 11:24, 20 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!} 03:13, 21 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 as the sources found do not demonstrate notability under guidelines. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ayana Rengiil[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've expanded the article with material from local sources, and it should meet GNG now. This material wasn't hard to find, and I'm surprised the nominator went straight for deletion rather than improvement.--IdiotSavant (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources you added come even close to meeting WP:GNG, yet alone WP:NTENNIS.

1) [39] Mentions the subject once in the ENTIRE article, clear fail of WP:SIGCOV.

2) [40] the subject is mentioned twice, and the article is not about the subject. Clear fail of GNG.

3) [41] same as #2, which says the subject graduated with a degree, nothing else. Another clear fail of GNG.

4) [42] This is a report written by the subject and not independent of her. Therefore it is another fails of WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I note you overlook the PlatformSports article, which is entirely about her.--IdiotSavant (talk) 04:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem like an independent source, would you agree? CT55555(talk) 05:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DaffodilOcean (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Argument made by IdiotSavant above is convincing. CT55555(talk) 03:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please review my GNG analysis of the sources in the article. All four sources added are clear fails of WP:GNG. @CT55555 Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Number 2 mentions the subject seven times and number 3 is about her and one other person only. So I don't assess the sources the same way, but I do think that it's a weaker pass than I first assessed. Seems like a weak WP:BASIC pass perhaps? CT55555(talk) 04:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The available coverage is totally trivial, mostly of a scholarship grant and graduation, with little to nothing of an actual tennis career. Below is a source assessment table based on this revision

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
1			"recently presented with the first ever Presidential Valedictorian Award with an all-expense paid trip to Disneyland in Hong Kong with their family."	✘ No
2			"graduated Summa Cum Laude in electrical engineering from Alabama Agriculture & Mechanical University ... was on a fully paid tennis scholarship from the University"	✘ No
3				✘ No
4			"graduated with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering from the Alabama A & M University in the USA. She will be an intern with Koror State Government Solid-Waste Management Program."	✘ No
5				✘ No
6	?	?	WP:YOUNGATH	✘ No
7			"victorious in alos 5 matches and impressively lost only once"	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Avilich (talk) 15:08, 7 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!} 01:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Number 2 lacks independence/secondariness -- most of it is repeating what Roki (her cousin) "felt" or "thought" or "decided", and at the end the author writes "Here's to you Roki! Keep going! We are all rooting for you!" which clearly eliminates it as an independent source (making it at best an opinion column, which can't be used for BLPs). I also cannot find any editorial info on IslandTimes Palau, so there is no way to assess whether it is RS or whether any of its staff are related to Rengiil (the above source indicates some are). The third source is very clearly a PR announcement from the PNSB program ("PNSB is proud to welcome home..." plus contact info at the bottom) and so also fails GNG (not that it was SIGCOV anyway). JoelleJay (talk) 21:08, 14 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!} 03:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Avilich, JoelleJay and Sportsfan have all assessed the sources comprehensively and I agree with the points made; they are insufficient for GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:50, 21 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. I'm closing this per the more convincing arguments of the "Delete" voters, despite the numerical advantage of the "Keep" voters, and despite the argument of the article creator that the sources are "not puff pieces". They do appear to be either puff pieces or mere enumerations of awards. (Except I don't know about footnote 6, the Zofeen Maqsood article, retrieved Feb 11, which today redirected me to a porn site.) Bishonen | tålk 18:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Dane[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR/CREATIVE. No credits outside of his own project 'Shiva' which isn't even completed (see: [43]). Awards do not appear to be notable, and are questionable given that all there is so far is a trailer. Also coverage of the subject is mostly to puff pieces or recycled press releases with contact information.-KH-1 (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India, Australia, and United States of America. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 05:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and Clarifications I drafted this page and submitted after discovering that the subject and his film Shiva won over 19 awards. I only included a few of the awards in line with Wikipedia guidelines on NPOV.

Wikipedia is not about quantity, it is about quality. Similarly, filmmaking is never about quantity, it is about quality. So the statement "no credits outside Shiva" is completely out of context. Shiva is a multi-award winning film bagging a total of 19 wins from some of the major international film festivals. That is called quality.

The source used by the nominator to buttress his statement is a press release which was never cited in the article itself. "Shiva is a fully completed stand alone short film that has its own script, due to which it has received multiple awards in short film, teaser film, micro film category. No film producer gets a best microfilm or best super short award for an incomplete project. So, it's out of place for the nominator to say the film "Shiva" is not completed".

To say that the "Awards do not appear to be notable", is also out of place. World Film Carnival Singapore , "Heart of Europe International Film Festival", "Rome International Movie Awards" and all other film festivals and the awards are one hundred percent verified on IMDB. The subject and his film Shiva won over 19 of such awards and they are all documented.

The 6 sources cited are not "puff pieces" as the nominator claimed. They are stand alone news links from some of the major press media. None of the six news articles used as reference in this article has any contact information of the subject Rex Dane. None of the news articles mentions Rex Dane’s phone number or email or street address or mailing address as claimed.

From the foregoing, I believe the page meets the demands of WP:NACTOR and WP:CREATIVE. It also meets WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.Mfepiiaatwam (talk) 12:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot to unpack here but I'll try to be brief. I'm curious - could you elaborate on how the subject meets WP:NACTOR? The first criteria requires that the subject "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Based on previous discussions, we generally look for at least 2-3 notable productions. Note that there's no exemption that says that the subject should get a free pass if they've received X number of awards. The second criteria refers to "...unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". I don't think Rex Dane has made any claims to that effect so we can probably rule that out.

"Quality not quantity" is precisely the issue here. You can rattle off the names of the all the film festivals if you want - but there's nothing here that would indicate that these are recognised or noteworthy. Per WP:ANYBIO #1, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times". I don't think that any of the awards meet that definition by any stretch of the imagination.

I have go to go, but I'll get to the references later.-KH-1 (talk) 05:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 14:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Some of the awards won by the subject are notable. Overall, awards contribute to notability. The subject's work appears to have won some awards and received some nominations. But the sources in the article needs improvement to establish a clear notability as some of the of sources cited are not reliable.Myna50 (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the following would you consider to be "well-known and significant award or honor"?-KH-1 (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject has a little above borderline notability based on the awards won. A before search indicates some sources exist to support the article. Carinco Tuck (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extra comment I found two direct sources where two of the awards mentioned at the lead were listed. They include one from Heart of Europe International Film Festival (HEIFEST) http://www.heifest.eu/season9/ and the other from World Film Carnival" https://worldfilmcarnival.com/1027-2/. The Shiva film awards are duly found on the two sources. Thank you all. Mfepiiaatwam (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are primary sources that simply verify the existence of the award. It doesn't show why/how they are notable. These are low-level film festivals with little to no third party coverage or industry recognition.-KH-1 (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's good you agree that those awards really existed. They are not faked. The primary sources were added to validate the awards. There are many others but I couldn't add them to make the page suit wikipedia guidelines on "NPOV". The Shiva film has won up to 19 awards as seen in this ref: https://washington-mail.com/the-romantic-short-film-shiva-by-rex-dane-wins-19-awards/?amp=1 . I believe this is enough to pass notability standards of the wikipedia platform.Mfepiiaatwam (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The awards are not even remotely close to being major. Coverage is regurgitated PR. No notability here. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:12, 1 March 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 03:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Low Tier God[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

1. The page does not establish notability for the subject. All sources tangentially mention it. 2. This page also appears to be a frequent target of vandalism by malicious actors. The subject has entered the page's talk page to request deletion before, which is not trivial per WP:BLP. 3. The article's apparent notability comes from the subject having a YouTube channel, but they have been permanently removed from the platform as of December of last year. My tightness (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Internet, and United States of America. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 05:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
G10 Speedy delete - appears to be an attack page. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 05:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a decently sourced article, and if vandalism is a problem, lock the article to authenticated users and above. Regardless, a lot of this information is already known to a certain degree, so I don't really see how this would be some big attack towards Low Tier God. WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 06:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Regarding it being sourced well: I'm not sure I can agree. BLP calls for a subject to have an article or independent source that squarely establishes its relevance. Here, every single source tangentially mentions the subject as part of something else. --My tightness (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  A steward already got rid of all of the unsourced stuff; Everything else was kept. WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 18:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's great but has nothing to do with my point. The sources in it right now do not establish subject's notability; they only tangentially mention him. Per Wikipedia:Notability_(people) "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." --My tightness (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    there were sources that actually did, but you literally removed all of them earlier. WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 23:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't remove anything. Your attack on me is not very helpful to this discussion. --My tightness (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Im not attacking you. (if my previous reply came off as an attack, I apologize.) Im just pointing out that you removed a lot of stuff from the page earlier, and it included sources that had the subject as notable. WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 04:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, fair enough. Just for anyone else reading: I didn't remove anything on the page. I never edited it before I read it the day I nominated it for deletion due to the problems I listed at the top. --My tightness (talk) 07:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No, the article is not reliably sourced where the only actual reliable sources hardly mention him or only mention his negatives. "Being well known" within his eSports community also doesn't mean a damn. We don't have a page on Chris-chan either, despite their infamy. I've tagged it with G10, because it is currently unsuitable for mainspace. The subject also requested deletion, and as someone that may barely scrape GNG (which I don't think is met), that should happen per policy. If the tag gets removed again, I'm blanking the page save for his infobox and lede. I take anything regarding BLPs very seriously, especially if the subject requests it and the sources are wholly lacking. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the page meeting G10, and have untagged it. Deleting seems fine per request and lack of in-depth sourcing, but speedy deletion is not required here. —Kusma (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma; Why wouldn't it be? I'm must say, I'm quite disappointed by the narrow application of G10 here. Is the article entirely negative? Yep, the "Career" section was entirely negative and read more like a list of controversies. Was it unsourced? In a BLP, if it lacks multiple reliable sources (or poorly sourced) and is contentious, then yes, it's considered good as unsourced (especially if they are mostly incidental mentions) per WP:BLP. Is there a neutral reversion to go back to? Not really, unless then he absolutely now meets A7. Sure, speedy deletions should be highly controversial, but I'm not seeing this here. He's a minor figure, requested page deletion, and the page is entirely negative (save for his super minor appearance on show, but that alone is something CSD-worthy). Literally no reason to drag this out. Why? I Ask (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 2020 versions of the page at least do not read entirely negative, especially as this is a YouTuber whose career seems to be built on being controversial. I would like us to have a discussion now to find out whether he is notable as a controversial YouTuber. If the page is speedily deleted, it can be recreated at any time, but if the page is deleted through AfD, deletion is more likely to stick. In any case, the page does not meet WP:CSD#G10, as two different administrators have told you already. —Kusma (talk) 11:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the 2020 version is any better. And "two different administrators" is also a terrible reason. If the entire bulk of the article is poorly sourced negative information, then it should qualify for G10. And it's also pretty obvious that he's not notable as it stands with only one actual reliable source (Hollywood Reporter) discussing him in-depth (about his ban). I don't care if he built his career by being controversial (and clearly he wants it deleted, so it's not like he's actively trying to cause uproar). If you remove all the unreliable sources, your left with information that he's a gamer and YouTuber (which does not satisfy A7), was banned for racist remarks, and made a minor appearance on ELeague. That's not an article. If we want to claim that now A7 is met because he appeared on a TV show, then fine. But just like Big Brother guests or any sort of Got Talent Shows, he'll be deleted. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kusma with respect to G10. ~~I have no view at this time with respect to notability.~~ Mz7 (talk) 09:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In addition to my concerns that this is an attack page (which included very negative content and apparently is so bad the subject is requesting deletion; if this is to be kept, serious revdels must be done) and should be speedily deleted under G10, the subject also does not meet the GNG. I challenge @WeaponizingArchitecture: to demonstrate their claim that this is a "decently sourced article" with respect to independent, secondary sources that provide significant coverage. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 17:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GhostOfDanGurney: To be honest I should've worded it better.

To quote an admin: "This is a pretty longstanding BLP with some reliably sourced content. If there is a dispute about specific content violating WP:BLP, I would recommend WP:BLPN."

Regardless, all of the sources listed actually confirmed the information that is being considered as "attacks." Furthermore, Just because his youtube channel was deleted doesn't immediatley revoke notability, considering he does or did esports. (the sources listed in the article point to this.) WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 23:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how an WP:ATTACK PAGE work. If someone is hardly notable, and sources only cover their controversies (we see this a lot with YouTubers where the only reliable sources available are made after their blunders for clicks), then it is an attack page. If 2 sources exist that both say "Jim is an asshole for his tweets", we still wouldn't have a page that has that as that opinion as the bulk of it. Because Wikipedia is not a news or tabloid site. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Low Tier God is not "Hardly Noteable" by any stretch. WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 01:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion, and it's pretty objectively wrong. There's two total sources that deal with him in-depth. Wikipedia doesn't care how notable he is in his community. We care about what third-party, independent sources say. And there's nothing there. Provide me with five reliable sources that demonstrate notability (preferably outside of his scandals). Why? I Ask (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention this earlier, but the sources didn't necessarily say "Low Tier God is an asshole." WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 05:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)|[reply]
Delete or at most draftify; it fails WP:NBIO and should not be in mainspace in this poor state. Since the person the article about is a public figure, per WP:BIODEL, they cannot reasonably have the article taken down if they are indeed notable, but given the sources here, that is in doubt. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I still view G10 as unnecessary for this article, I think Why? I Ask has made a pretty convincing argument for deletion for lack of notability under WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. We do have [44] in The Hollywood Reporter as one example of in-depth RS coverage, and I declined speedy deletion because of this source in combination with the mentions in Polygon and ESPN (generally, attack pages are wholly negative and unsourced, and this page did have these sources, as well as a relatively long history, not all of which was negative—although I'm sympathetic to the desire to remove borderline BLP content as quickly as possible, under these circumstances I think we should use the standard discussion process). After some thought, I now agree that these sources alone are insufficient to demonstrate encyclopedic notability. The other sources that were cited in the article did not go towards notability, with several references to YouTube videos, random blogs, and primary sources promoting specific events. It doesn't look like this person is encyclopedically notable either for his controversies or for his YouTube content creation. Mz7 (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is well said. It must also be reiterated that with permanent termination, one can't even refer to the first-party source for any form of notability (not that first-party sources are preferred by any means). --My tightness (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I believe there's reuploads of some of his videos on Youtube/Web Archive, if you want me to find some that relate to the article, I can. WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 05:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  The termination of his channel isn't really relevant to notability (once a topic becomes notable, that topic will always be notable, regardless of what happens to it). The focus is rather on significant coverage in reliable sources, which does not appear to exist here. Mz7 (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 14:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)UTC)[reply]
Delete I really don't think he's notable enough to have a article plus there's erroneous info on the page such as the fact that his name isn't actually "Dalauan Sparrow", it's (Redacted). I find it not unlikely that this page is watched by (Redacted) himself to inflate his ego even more considering he's hiding even his real name on it. Second Skin (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Reporter has it as Dalauan. Also, please refrain from making assumed negative comments about people, even outside of mainspace articles. Someone claiming to be the subject has already requested deletion, so I somehow doubt what you said is the case. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with the admins that this doesn't meet G10. In my opinion Why? I Ask seems to have misunderstood the meaning of an attack page and incorrectly applied G10 to LTG's page. Reading this discussion, Why? I Ask asserts that the page serves as an attack page because most of the content disparages him in some way, only focusing on the negative aspects of him as a person and YouTuber. Looking at the previous revisions of his article that don't involve obviously reverted vandalism, the closest claim I could find that was arguably disparaging was one of him being notorious for quitting games in anger. Although it came from the unreliable source Looper, that claim isn't inherently negative in that it was meant to insult him, but rather represent a reflection of his reputation from the world at large. If more reliable sources existed that discussed his notorious reputation in this manner - like Kotaku, Polygon or even newspapers like The New York Times - this wouldn't be an issue; the claim could work as attribution where it's clearly the opinion and/or analysis of the journalists working for such outlets. If you're arguing that the article's contents attack his character because reliable sources have referred to him only in a negative light, please see WP:BIASED. At most, this problem with the article's focus on negative events is merely an example of due and undue weight. If more reliable sources note and analyze his negative reputation than not, that just means it's a majority viewpoint in line with due weight, not an attempt to demean or harass him. A genuine attack page would be, well, an attack page. It would contain unsourced, bad faith insults about his character akin to an Encyclopedia Dramatica page where every sentence in the article reads less like an informative article and more like cyberbullying.

In general, plenty of BLPs of controversial beings exist in Wikipedia that meet the notability guidelines in spite of their reputation, because they have reliable sources discussing them significantly. That's what separates them from Low Tier God. The problem with this article shouldn't be whether the content is a wholly negative attack page because he's a controversial figure. Rather, the main issue is the lack of reliable sources that actually discuss him significantly as a controversial figure. In that regard, I agree that he may not meet the notability guidelines. PantheonRadiance (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a lack of reliable sources, then (for BLPs) there's no sources. In the Polygon or Vice, they are single-sentence mentions. That's not enough to include something contentious in a BLP. Sure, I'm not against saying Hitler was evil because the sources are there. But this fellow is only famous (in reliable sources at least) for exceedingly minor controversies. (Not that I am trying to downplay his poor actions, but in the grand scheme of things...) You cannot have a page on a BLP that is only poorly covered controversies. That's an attack page if I ever. And when it comes to Wikipedia articles on minor internet celebrities, you better believe I am going to be liberal when applying G10. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking into the person i can't find anything that really makes him a notable person outside of the video game community on Youtube and even with in that his notability appears limited to supposed controversies and the people that enjoyes indulging themselves in such things.Halmstad (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - He was on TV as a top division player in his sport.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"He was on TV" is not a valid keep rationale nor is being a top Street Fighter player. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REALITYTV: "Brief public exposure...does not make one notable." - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 17:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/draftify per a lack of WP:SIGCOV and failure of WP:NBIO, but oppose the invocation of G10. DecafPotato (talk) 01:50, 27 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. (non-admin closure) Timothytyy (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrews University Airpark[edit]

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

Non-notable privately owned airstrip. Best I could find from a BEFORE search was a one sentence mention which clearly confers no notability. I would also be ok with a redirect to Andrews University if others feel that is a worthwhile ATD. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Michigan. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Okay, this one isn't a clear keep, but it's a privately owned public access airport with a nontrivial amount of traffic and instrument approaches (example). Those terps are nontrivial. It's enough to make me think that sources might exist for depth of coverage- just not online. tedder (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to confess I'm a bit confused. Shady Lawn Field is also a privately owned public access airport, but there's pretty clear consensus it's not notable. Is there some sort of guideline about what level of traffic brings an airport to the point we might assume notability? I saw both in New Page Patrol, and from a basic examination both appeared non-notable to me. The Flying Magazine source from 2007 identified by gidonb does look promising; I think the problem was I searched for the page title with quotation marks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going by WP:GNG or any objective metric involving news, even with the sources below, it's going to be tough. But real quick, Shady Lawn is a short grass runway. So it's used by one or two planes owned by Shady Lawn. This airpark is privately owned but paved, longer, and more frequently used- anyone can fly in, it has a few dozen planes based there, gets a decent amount of traffic per year, and has those instrument approaches- meaning (roughly) that FAA has surveyed it and keeps a close eye on any construction nearby, towers/cranes, and so forth. Those instrument procedures, even basic GPS ones like this, are a big deal and mean it's published in navigation charts and airfield listings. I'm not arguing GNG or SIGCOV or anything here- just giving a comparison between the two. And like I said on Shady Lawn, I have no idea where to draw the line on notability of airfields, Shady is an obvious delete, this one probably leans slightly towards delete. tedder (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As tedder notes, this is a public access airport. These facilities have WP:SIGCOV, for example two pages in Flying (magazine) in 2007[45] and a paragraph in the same in 1974.[46] The airpark also had WP:SIGCOV in the South Bend Tribune [47] and there is one reference in the article that counts toward notability, since the flight school is part of the operations. gidonb (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the creator of both pages mentioned here: while I can rationalize the issue with Shady Lawn, this airport is significantly used, is connected with academics a notable university, has a significant number of aircraft operations unrelated to the university, and has significant resources that parallel those available at many other notable airports. It also has a significant number of incidents that lead additional notable sources to the airport. This isn't some random airport that's just kinda there. It has a significant number of sources that lead to it and is worthy being kept on the site.--Slowtationjet (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
just went back in to add additional information about the airport as well as a number of sources unrelated to the airport or university. the airport has received significant coverage for various reasons over the years. certainly notable. Slowtationjet (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This airpark is unique due to its privately owned but accessible to the public status.TH1980 (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That does not even come close to making it unique. Hundreds of airports work the same way, and most are non-notable. This is discussed above. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:52, 26 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 03:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shady Lawn Field[edit]

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

Clearly non-notable private general aviation airport. None of the sources come remotely close to contributing any sort of notability. Did a basic BEFORE search and came up with nothing useful, just lots of stuff about handling a lawn that has shade. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Michigan. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All sources are primary. There's no notability, also not for the company. gidonb (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We're not supposed to engage in whataboutism, but to keep this airport would mean that every airport in the U.S. would be included. WP is not a directory. Rhadow (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure where I think the line for notability should be, but this is definitely not it. tedder (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This page is by far not the only one about an airport that is statistic-heavy, and I think it's still important to have information about it available. I'm working to add additional information about it to expand the page and prove its notability.--Slowtationjet (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Spamming primary sources will not help. It doesn't matter if you find 500 of them, that won't show notability. If you cannot identify significant coverage in secondary sources, honestly you'd be better off directing your efforts elsewhere (hint: every source in the article right now is primary, and "Michigan Department of Transportation" with no further information isn't even a reference at all). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:43, 27 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 List of DC Comics characters: S. Star Mississippi 03:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Star Sapphire (DC Comics character)[edit]

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

Appears to be another fancrufty article about an obscure superhero of middling importance. Has all of two non-primary sources that aren’t even about Star Sapphire (any of them). Not counting passing mentions and obvious non-WP:RS, here are all the sources I found:

https://screenrant.com/star-sapphire-green-lantern-comic-origin-powers-explained/
- listicle; is this even a reliable source?
https://www.cbr.com/green-lantern-star-sapphire-carol-ferris-trivia-facts/
- Not even about “Star Sapphire” specifically
https://www.cbr.com/green-lantern-star-sapphire-facts-fans-should-know/
- again, another article about the original/most famous Star Sapphire Carol Ferris (a terrible looking article in and of itself)
https://www.cbr.com/green-lantern-star-sapphire-facts-trivia-dc-fans/
- another mediocre listicle

Merging or redirecting (probably to Carrol Ferris or some list of Green Lantern cruft) is not implausible. Dronebogus (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Dronebogus (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be fancruft without an obvious target. With a lack of secondary sources or significant coverage, it doesn't seem notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per it also being a WP:SETINDEX or merge with List of DC Comics characters: S in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. To the closer of this discussion if the latter happens, I ask that the Star Sapphires group be sent to a page that lists the different organizations of DC Comics. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:10, 18 February 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)} 02:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of DC Comics characters: S in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. I am not seeing any notability here (name of several charcters, none of which seem to have a reception section), and I don't see why we should have SETINDEXes for such content. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- We still will have to find someplace to put the Star Sapphires on this website even if we have to restructure the List of teams and organizations in DC Comics page just like the restructuring that was done to the List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations page. Right? --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I don't really see sources to prove WP:NOTABILITY, but I will support a merge per other editors. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:21, 23 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 America's Next Top Model (season 14). There's no consensus to keep this as a standalone, but merit to discuss her there. Star Mississippi 03:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Krista White[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

6 years since last nom, the article still fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and Arkansas. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but TNT. There's coverage in the LA Times [48] and People magazine [49] among others. Most of the article now is from 2010ish, when she likely wasn't notable. It's horribly out of date. Oaktree b (talk) 03:33, 31 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!} 03:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to America's Next Top Model (season 14). Unless there is coverage for her recent history, the sources that cover her career in relation to her appearance on the show should be covered within the show's article, i.e., on the Legacy/Impact of the season (on the winner's career). czar 17:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 02:12, 21 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 alien races in DC Comics#Z. Anything worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zamaron[edit]

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

Obscure fictional alien race. Has exactly ONE non-primary source. Skimming Google was unsurprisingly devoid of any new sources besides listicles and a few throwaway mentions that could easily have been about the planet. Maybe this could be merged somewhere, like “list of fictional species in DC comics”. Dronebogus (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Dronebogus (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure fancruft without notability or any obvious targets, better fit for a fan Wiki. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per above; no notability and mainly primary sources. However, it could be merged to a suitable target if one is found. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Doesn't seem notable, but redirect would be better than deletion. But redirect where? Ping User:BOZ for suggestions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's already mentioned at List of alien races in DC Comics. BOZ (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, then my vote is to redirect it there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of alien races in DC Comics in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE and per the suggestion of @BOZ:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not worth keeping, and barely worth merging. This is more of a redirect situation. Dronebogus (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also pitched for it to be merged with List of alien races in DC Comics. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability, bad sources and fandom. -- Dane ^talk 21:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't seem to pass WP:N. Only one non-primary source. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of alien races in DC Comics#Z - As discussed above, the sourcing just does not exist for this fictional race to sustain an article, but as they are already mentioned on the main list with a properly succinct description, Redirecting would be appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 17:15, 21 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 02:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Bolack[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Not meeting POLITICS or GNG. Donating his ranch is a good cause, but nothing notable for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Radio, Police, Archaeology, Kansas, and New Mexico. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 04:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Article creator) Meets WP:GNG. Significant coverage - No original research was needed to get the content. Reliable - plenty of independent, secondary published sources, with a variety of "reliability" levels from OK to good; I will add a couple more. Tommy Bolack was already mentioned in 3 coin and radio-related articles, IIRC and FWIW. Comment on process: WP:NEXIST seems inconsistent with User:Onel5969#Thoughts. IMO it is a mistake to use deletion process to try to coerce editors to improve new articles; it encourages defensively written stubs for new articles. Comment on categories: Input from editors interested in collections, coins, museums, etc. could be good. -- Yae4 (talk) 11:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not to try to get people to improve articles, it's that based on what we have, it's likely not meeting notability requirements on Wiki. I looked for other sources and couldn't find any. Always a chance others can find sources, and the article can be kept, but I tried and couldn't find any. Oaktree b (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added numerous more citations including several from books, including one with a lot of coverage of Tommy and related archaeology work. -- Yae4 (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of it is routine stuff; running for politics isn't notable, donating land could be, but it's mostly trivial mentions. The museum he runs is likely more notable than he is as a person, we could perhaps redirect there, but that article would need to be created. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GNG is not just "any webpage you can find that has his name in it", and requires a certain specific class of substantive and analytical coverage in real media and/or books. Notability cannot be established by blogs, content self-published by organizations he's directly affiliated with, or by his own bylined writing about other things — but that's 14 of the 20 footnotes here, and of the just six that come from real media, all six of those are "local man does stuff" human interest coverage in the local media of his own hometowm media market, which is not in and of itself sufficient coverage to get a person over WP:GNG if he has nothing more nationalized than that. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-count. Also WP:SUSTAINED over time. -- Yae4 (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sustained yes, coverage of trivial events is the problem. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One is not notable simply because their dad is notable. One is not notable simply because they ran for a local position. One is not notable simply because they did a good act, or simply by owning a rare coin, or simply by hosting a community event. One is notable by receiving significant coverage, which generally does not include run-of-the-mill coverage in hyper-local news; this subject does not have meaningful coverage, thus not passing WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage: "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content... is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Check. Check. It's not A coin; It is 16 of 19 known Washington quarter Mule coins. It is not hosting a community event; It is 30 years of events, 20-30+ years of archaeology including discovery of hundreds of pre-historic home sites and thousands of samples from pottery to skeletons. Mixing your father's ashes into fireworks and firing them off is just icing. As for associated or local organizations self-publishing, some are academics, some are published books now. -- Yae4 (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Compare and contrast this AFD with the other I'm recently involved in. They are two different categories - BLP and a business/non-profit, but I took the other to AFD because it was difficult for me to find independently published sources, of any kind, and I tried. People who support the non-profit find a couple obscure Linux publications and say that's enough for notability. Here, it is easy to find independently published articles, books and scholarly publications involving Bolack. The most difficult thing is getting past login-walls or Tor-block-walls to read and summarize them. Here is a rich guy in a poor US state[50] doing interesting - you could say historic - things with lasting consequences, but he needs "national" coverage? Maybe if he was shooting cattle from helicopters he'd be in the NY Times.[51] Shaking my head. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He needs more than trivial coverage. Donating the ranch is fine, but it's two lines of text in the article. Most of what he have is non-notable and longer than the notable parts of it. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:ANYBIO page: For people, ... significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary. ... People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards... The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field; Google scholar search for "Tommy site"[52] or for "point site" farmington "new mexico"[53], along with protection of the ranch property is enough, but add on interesting and unusual aspects like unique collections, two museums, a unique spreading of ashes with fireworks, etc., is enough to deserve attention or be recorded. Another comparison article, a related BLP (related in archaeology impact): Anna_Sofaer. It has a NY Times citation (with mentions of some activities, but otherwise similar complaints about citations can be made. Maybe the Bolack article should similarly focus more on the archaeology discoveries and work? -- Yae4 (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General Comment. I don't doubt people such as Sarah_Jim_Mayo (but also somewhat weak references), Richard Wetherill, sister in law Louisa Wade Wetherill should have biographies in Wikipedia, but where is Richard Wetherill's wife, Marietta? Marietta did most of the trading... Richard, his brother Win, and his wife Marietta built an exhibition at the St. Louis World's Fair ...Wetherill and his wife Marietta are buried in the small cemetery west of Pueblo Bonito along with several Navajos. (In a national historic site)
Researchers/Authors Stephen Lekson[54], Gordon Vivian[55], his son R. Gwinn Vivian[56] who literally wrote the encyclopedia on Chaco Canyon (The Chaco Handbook, An Encyclopedic Guide) by Vivian and Hilpert[57][58] Frank McNitt[59] are cited dozens of times, so they clearly had unique and interesting things to say, but when you look for their biographies in this wiki encyclopedia, they are not found. Oh well. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How does Sarah Jim Mayo have weak references lmao???? Curbon7 (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"also somewhat weak" = vulnerable to similar (IMO invalid) criticisms.

The Mayo article and citations are mostly about a famous basket, and basketry. A story about the person is pieced together from brief mentions in several sources... Citation 1: Reno Gazette Journal is "hyper local" newspaper obituary, a criticism given above. Citation 3: Dissertation, University of Nevada, Reno: In 218 pages Mayo gets brief passing mentions, local not "national", and indicates uncertainty ("said to be", identification difficulty): p.92 (cited) says "Renowned Washoe ethnographer Warren d Azevedo " and "The great importance the Washoe attach to their basket-making tradition... Not only does this exemplify the cultural importance of basketry, it points to the diminished Washoe agency and their absorption of Euro-American ascribed identity." Sara Jim Mayo— said to be the daughter of the first Captain Jim (He’nu-keha) who had died in the 1860s—completed a large commemorative basket into which she had woven..." Page 107 (not cited?) does say "noted basket maker" but also hedges: "It may be easy to confuse Captain Pete and Agnes with Captain Pete Mayo and his wife, noted basket maker, Sara Mayo, pictured at Al Tahoe on the South Shore in Figure 6.7. Often the Captains Pete are referred to as such, so it is difficult to identify them without their last names or spouses.29" "29 The identification of Sarah Mayo was from the UNR Special Collections website Images of Lake Tahoe (“Images of Lake Tahoe” 2015). d’Azevedo discusses the two Captain Petes (d’Azevedo and Sturtevant 1986). Identifying individual people is difficult because through time, some photographs have been misidentified and this misidentification lingers in scholarship." Citation 4: The Art of Native American Basketry book does mention her more, but mostly is about the basketry, not the person. Similarly, article section "Early life" is mostly about Captain Jim; Mayo does not inherit notability from him. Citation 6: A "hyper local" Carson NV museum postcard....

I got deja vu looking at the sourcing, because IMO it is similar. -- Yae4 (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to seeing your critiques again at WP:PR and eventually WP:GAN or WP:FAC. Curbon7 (talk) 21:25, 26 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) 01:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kaira Jewel Lingo[edit]

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

Non-notable author or mindfulness person. I don't find any reviews of her books, she's written for various spiritual magazines, but no critical notice of her as an individual. Oaktree b (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Buddhism, Spirituality, Kenya, France, and Illinois. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 04:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 04:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holistic delete, my searches and indicated only homeopathic levels of notability. CT55555(talk) 13:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 20:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately the article only has non-independent sources, and I was unable to find any sources online that would satisfy WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NAUTHOR, or WP:RELPEOPLE. - Aoidh (talk) 21:15, 24 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 02:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Smarkets[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I do not believe the depth of coverage here constitutes a "level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements" as required to meet WP:CORP. At least 8 references relate to the 2022 US Presidential election. Others refs relate to sponsorship deals and salary policies - all rather routine. Uhooep (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Companies, Malta, United Kingdom, and California. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 04:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage does not seem to meet WP:SIGCOV, so this seems to fail WP:NCOMPANY and WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also note that the original creator of this article is blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. Uhooep (talk) 09:37, 21 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] Gilman-Opalsky, Richard (31 January 2020). "Book Review: Harrison, Peter, The Freedom of Things: An Ethnology of Control". Theory in Action. 13 (1): 240–241. doi:10.3798/tia.1937-0237.2010.

[2] Acosta, Alejandro de (2010). "Anarchist Meditations: Or, Three Wild Interstices of Anarchy and Philosophy". Anarchist Developments in Cultural Studies (1): 128–131. ISSN 1923-5615.

[3] HINES, FRANCIS (2021). "EVADING REPRESENTATION: THE LITERATURE OF CONTEMPORARY U.S. ANARCHISM" (PDF).

[4] Ritner, Scott. "The Critical Spirit: The Pessimistic Heterodoxy of Simone Weil - ProQuest". www.proquest.com.

[5] Vitale, Sarah E. (2020). "Post-Marxist Political Ontology and the Foreclosure of Radical Newness". Philosophy Today. 64 (3): 651–669. doi:10.5840/philtoday2020107352.

[6] Aarons, Kieran (2020). "Destitution and Creation: Agamben's Messianic Gesture" (PDF). Journal of Italian Philosophy. 3: 51–89.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]