Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 30 August 01 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mirianée Zaragoza[edit]

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

The subject has earned at least seven caps for the Puerto Rico women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; I can't find any Portuguese- or Spanish-language sources that cover the subject in-depth. Jogurney (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flynn Creek Circus[edit]

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

This is a regional traveling circus. I can't find any coverage of them, other than "the circus is coming to town"-style PR pieces. Joyous! Noise! 21:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Metak (album)[edit]

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

Seems non-notable Charsaddian (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:34, 31 July 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 Becky Johnson. Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Cobra[edit]

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

Not notable beyond one of the members, Becky Johnson. Likely can just be a paragraph or two in her article. ZimZalaBim talk 22:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Piala Belia[edit]

2023 Piala Belia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

2023 Piala Belia

Youth football tournament with no current sources. The only reference is from February 2023 and states that the tournament is scheduled. That doesn't make it notable. Mostly this article reports unverified scores of games. Verifiability in Wikipedia is necessary; it is not a nice-to-have. This article has already been moved to draft space twice, and so should not be moved to draft space unilaterally a third time, and besides there are now two copies, one in draft space and one in article space. The article should be deleted from article space and left in draft space. The Heymann criterion is to provide real up-to-date sourcing rather than just move-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 31 July 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 Carl Williams (criminal). Clear consensus against a standalone article; I'm unconvinced by the only argument opposing a merger, as the only content that could be merged is reasonably biographic for the father. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dhakota Williams[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Majority the linked sources are all 1 source in actuality (News Corp media), and are generally sensationalised and/or not encyclopedic for wikipedia. This BLP only has association with Carl Williams (criminal), which is all the subject is known for. There is no other source or media that demonstrates independent notability. Tytrox (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Not convinced by the merge !votes, as there is no relevance between her and her late father other than biology. I don't think it's appropriate for her to have a section or paragraph on that page and I wouldn't suggest a redirect either. At this time, she isn't really notable in her own right so I don't think it warrants any kind of article. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit of Metal[edit]

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

Appears to be a crowdsourced online forum and encyclopedia with no claim to notability. Tagged for COI creation since 2014. Valereee (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing for this webzine, only sourcing using the phrase to describe other things. Oaktree b (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:28, 31 July 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Homer, Kansas[edit]

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

No evidence of a current or former community at this location; it appears to have been a railroad siding/water stop with a post office. BEFORE search did not return significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 21:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - satellite image shows nothing there. No railway siding - just a single track. About a mile from the interstate; the exit sign says "Pioneer Road" and another says "Russell next 2 exits". No mention of Homer. There is a large farmhouse 1/2 mile west of these coordinates and another one 1/4 mile east.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the obvious thing to do is change the article to ghost town, which I did just now. I don't know why Homer wasn't listed in the template or county articles, but I fixed them too. The google satellite view shows the location next to a "Homer Rd", thus article is useful for people to understand the source of that road name. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask which source supports the "ghost town" label? –dlthewave ☎ 04:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No Opinion - Plenty of coverage in newspaper sources. It appears The Russel Record carried a semiregular column, "Homer Items", that discussed matters in the town ([1] [2] [3]). This correspondence contains some substantive information about the town (perhaps not RS as a letter to the editor of sorts). Other papers contained info about the town, including a blowout baseball game and a train timetable. Clearly meets WP:GEOLAND with WP:NTEMP in mind. AviationFreak💬 02:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The "substantive information" in that correspondence reads:

    From Homer. I have often wondered why The Record, with all its enterprise, has not established an agency and a correspondent in this city. Homer differs from other cities in many things. It has no city government, and the people do as they please. It has no city marshal and is not annoyed by crap shooters.

    It has no churches and no dives. There has been a movement in real estate the last few days, but no property has changed hands. No hogs or chickens are kept within the city limits. The census enumerator reports no marriages, no deaths and no babies born during tha last census year. Tarty politics cut no figure and the Ruppenthal-Gernon contest is scarcely heard of.

    The health of the city is good which may, perhaps, be attributed to the fact that there are no doctors here. City property is not high and people who wish to enjoy a quiet peaceful life should come to Homer. Having named a few of the negative virtues of the city, I will subside, leaving the positive ones for a future letter. Homer.

    This seems to be tongue in cheek. The substantive information it appears to give is that there is nothing much in Homer. It certainly doesn't verify that it actually is a city or anything more than a stop. The baseball game also is quite interesting, as nearly everybody on both teams has the same surname. The baseball game article does mention a school though, Yet if the school is anything more than an extended tutoring arrangement, one would expect some record of that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't considered that the newspaper is likely tongue-in-cheek; I'm not the best at reading sarcasm but that seems to fit the bill. There is a slightly more substantial mention of the school in source 2, linked above - the name of the "captain" and mention of Sunday school programming. There is a rather substantial log of "Homer Items" columns in various Russell-based papers, but these provide little information about the place itself (much more local happenings and gossip). With this in mind, I've changed my vote of "Keep" to "No Opinion" (I hope that's allowed); I feel that there's probably not enough to show a clear-cut meeting of GEOLAND, but the place seems to act like more of a settlement than your average whistle stop with a post office. AviationFreak💬 05:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I have to say this over and over: newspaper references to a place name don't automatically mean that it's a town. I can't find any evidence that there was a settlement there with houses and stores and the like, whereas there's plenty of evidence in the form of maps and aerials that there isn't anything there but a passing siding. These mentions are completely consistent with Homer being a vague locale, not a town; and we've long ago decided that station stops are not notable as such (station buildings being a different matter). Mangoe (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (nom): Not everyone who colonised the Western US lived in a town; many were farmers who bought (or stole) a piece of land far from any settlement. If you asked them where they lived, they'd name the post office where they picked up their mail, which was often just a farmhouse or one of the tiny railroad stations that had been established at regular intervals along the tracks. Maybe there would be a church or schoolhouse nearby to serve the dispersed population. I read the newspaper correspondence as tongue-in-cheek: The writer is having a laugh at the absurdity of living in a such a non-town. –dlthewave ☎ 12:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I have thought hard about this one and reviewed all the newspaper clippings provided by AviationFreak, and wish to thank them for their efforts finding them. AviationFreak is right that Homer gets a number of mentions, and although the one I quoted above seems fairly clear there was little enough in Homer, there is evidence of a school and/or Sunday School and "Lyceum" (which is not, in this instance, necessarily a school) in the vicinity. There was clearly an area with some settlement that was called Homer, and the existence of the train stop shows why the area acquired that name. Yet per Mangoe, the stop is not sufficient in itself for notability, and per dlthewave, this kind of informal community frequently existed but would lack official recognition. GEOLAND tends to be quite accomodating to place articles because Wikipedia is a Gazetteer. But it is not indiscriminate all the same. So the real question here is whether an encyclopaedic article can be written about the alleged ghost town of Homer. After much searching, I think the answer to that is no. There is simply not enough evidence that this was anything but an informal collection of dwellings in the general vicinity of a train stop. It is better treated in the Russell, Kansas article (which currently does not mention it). All the sources I have looked at have been Russell local sources, and that is the notable community here. Therefore, a useful Alternative to Deletion would be a redirect to Russell, Kansas. No article is possible about Homer, but it may perhaps be notable for a mention at that page. I would thus also be content with redirect as an outcome here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Corker[edit]

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

Only a handful of appearances outside of Premiership Rugby and no indication of notability. Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:RU/N. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect - in process of updating entry. 240 appearances across premiership and championship rugby (2x winner), British & Irish cup winner. Coach across 2 national league rugby teams. 2A00:23C4:498E:6001:8119:2988:43DB:575B (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete There seems to be a good deal of coverage, however I'm not sure how much of this would pass WP:GNG. If someone can dig up some more interviews, then I'd be happy to reconsider, as there is some stuff out there. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Several sky sports and BBC articles have been added 185.104.136.31 (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Interview reference added and archived Wasps team profile also gives clear backing to early career standing 2A00:23C4:498E:6001:3407:C73:7F98:7C85 (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Starland[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSICBIO. Hotpot for WP:PROMOTION, apparently. Previously deleted, for context. No apparent independent, verifiable sources covering subject. Only press releases with passing mention exist. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 19:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Web sources look to be content farms, possibly malicious websites, or dead links. It also seems like there is an aggressive campaign by other editors to keep these links up even after revision or deletion. 69.113.144.213 (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article for Keep. This article has been verified by numerous sources including major publications such as Forbes, Billboard, Authority Magazine, CBS local and others. The recent announcement of Wendy Starland winning the popular music competition show Banded: The Musician Competition in the press explains the increased traffic to her Wikipedia page, since the show is syndicated and is airing to over 250 million households. There have been repeated attacks and vandalism to this page that go against Wikipedia's policies. All copyright permissions and licenses can be found at the bottom of each of the pages on:
== https://www.wendystarland.com/music ==
== https://www.wendystarland.com/campaigns-modeling ==
== https://www.wendystarland.com/art ==
== https://www.wendystarland.com/television ==
== https://www.wendystarland.com/wendy-starland ==
The following primary credible sources that validate most of the information in the article can found through these links:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/allysonportee/2023/06/19/wendy-starland-the-woman-that-discovered-and-developed-lady-gaga-talks-fashion-and-music/?sh=7f95a0b63d92
https://medium.com/authority-magazine/inspirational-women-in-hollywood-how-wendy-starland-is-helping-to-shake-up-the-entertainment-256dafedeb37 Duanepem (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC) (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
  • Delete and salt per nom, hasn't been improved since its 2014 deletion Nswix (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep subject has Billboard and CBS News coverage. However, many of other sources are not so good.Naomijeans (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The coverage looks real and verifiable, but everything about her seems to relate to Lady Gaga. There is nothing else of note and I'm not sure that is enough information for an article. She is mentioned on the Lady Gaga article and I think that's really all that is pertinent from an encyclopedic POV. 69.113.144.213 (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have listed the article at WP:CP, as everything currently in the article is copied from her website. The problem appears to be foundational to this iteration, but does not extend into the version of the article that we previously deleted. — Diannaa (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: the copyright holders have released the source webpages under a compatible license. — Diannaa (talk) 13:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support of Delete. Per nom. Almost nothing is written on the article except for the infobox and a large possible copyright template. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 01:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Worth noting that that wouldn't be grounds for deletion @Layah50, as there are prior extant versions with content, and source assessment is done off all existing sources, whether (currently) in article or not. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the copyright notice was placed yesterday when Diannaa (see above) discovered copied text from other websites, but before that the article had some real text on Ms. Starland. That text should be the basis of discussions of her notability and could possibly be re-written if she is in fact notable. See this: [4]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - This one is really straining my philosophy of being an honest and ethical voter, because I have no regard for an article that was probably written by the person herself and is/was overly dependent on junk sources. But I must admit that Ms. Starland has been covered by the reliable Billboard and CBS (noted by a voter above), while I also found coverage in Forbes ([5]) and Medium ([6]). Outside of music she also has some notice in the fashion press, such as ([7]). One problem for us is that her attempts at music and painting are absolutely non-notable, but she might squeak by the requirements at WP:ENTERTAINER given high-profile coverage for a Lady Gaga-related lawsuit and various other celebrity-ish endeavors. Just barely, that is. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Side Note - If the article is kept, someone will have to volunteer to rewrite her biography from scratch and without the giant copyright violation. If nobody is immediately interested, maybe Draftifying is a viable solution. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright Permissions & Licenses- All copyright permissions and licenses can be found at the bottom of each of the pages on:
== https://www.wendystarland.com/music ==
== https://www.wendystarland.com/campaigns-modeling ==
== https://www.wendystarland.com/art ==
== https://www.wendystarland.com/television ==
== https://www.wendystarland.com/wendy-starland == Duanepem (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BLP1E at best. Even if "discovered Lady Gaga" is actual personal notability rather than by association, and I'm not convinced except that that's really what so many sources keep trumpeting, that's all she really has. Could mention her in Lada Gaga's page. DMacks (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and salt, given recreation after AFD-deletion, and 15+-year history of COI editing/self-promotion and sock-puppetry. DMacks (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wendystarland, which includes an SPA here at the AFD. DMacks (talk) 11:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See video proof of Lady Gaga crediting Wendy Starland for discovering her on the podium at The Songwriter's Hall Of Fame Awards ceremony: https://www.wendystarland.com/music Duanepem (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC) (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
    It might have been a slip of the tongue but in that video, credit is definitely given to "Wendy Starlet", not "Wendy Starland". Dorsetonian (talk) 06:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So...she wasn't really honored at the Songwriter's Hall of Fame? She was just shouted out? Weak. Sounds like a typical Hollywood hanger-on reaching for relevancy. 69.113.144.213 (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and SALT. I might have !voted Weak Keep if the claims made in the article could be taken at face value, but something fishy is going on here and I am not sure they can. The bulk of the article claims just don't seem to stack up; if this person was anything like as successful as claimed they'd be a household name and there would be lots of coverage of them in reliable sources - they're not, on both counts. It stretches credulity to the point where it feels like this might be a complete hoax; I'm even beginning to wonder how much the one thing sources can be found for (that she "discovered" Lady Gaga) can be believed as well. But even assuming it's all above board, I would still say this is a case of WP:BLP1E and should only be mentioned in the Lady Gaga page. Given that it is mentioned in the Lady Gaga page, there is no need to merge. SALT because of the past recreations and obvious promotion taking place, any attempt at a new article should be vetted by going through the WP:AfC process. Dorsetonian (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm getting the sense this lady hired some sort of company to spoof her Wikipedia view numbers (although going wayyy overboard to the point that it rung a few alarm bells among editors) and make it seem like she is bigger than she is, although why they would try to fake her credentials through phony articles and dead links is beyond me. The only real notable things about her is "finding" Lady Gaga and then winning a case against Gaga's then-producer to say she was the one who found her. The rest of her work seems to be A&R and commercial work, which isn't really notable enough for a Wikipedia page.
    The sock puppet accounts mentioned something about some overseas music competition show she's on, so maybe she's trying to make herself seem like a bigger star to please the producers of the show? I don't know, this has been a wild ride. I originally thought this was some weird AI celebrity experiment until I saw she was a real person. I just want to know what the hell is going on, haha. 69.113.144.213 (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Due to WP:BIO1E. The remaining coverage is largely self-published, interviews and passing mentions (and deadlinks). MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Race Cutty Sark and Thermopylae[edit]

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

The natural home for this article content is in either of the articles Cutty Sark and Thermopylae (clipper), both of which already cover the race (WP:REDUNDANTFORK). The creator of the article advises that this is a translation from Russian Wikipedia. The majority of sources in the subject are written in English. The two levels of translation required may explain some strange or questionable article content. The quality of writing in English is poor. (Information: see the similar AfD for Tea race (competitions). This discussion originated at WT:WikiProject_Ships#Two_poor_quality_articles) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tea race (competitions)[edit]

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

The article content would be better handled in Clipper (potentially WP:REDUNDANTFORK). The creator advises that this is a translation from Russian Wikipedia, but the majority of the sources for this subject are written in English. The two levels of translation involved might explain some inaccurate or questionable content. It would be much better to be rewritten as a part of Clipper, using that article's existing sources for the bulk of the new content. The writing quality is poor. (Information: discussion originated at WT:WikiProject_Ships#Two_poor_quality_articles. A similar AfD is being submitted for Race Cutty Sark and Thermopylae, to follow shortly.) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and History. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Clipper—no evidence of significant coverage that deserves a forking. Obviously, the poor prose doesn't help, but even without that there really isn't much going for the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to tea race. Not limited to clippers. See JSTOR 23885249. Lots of material for expansion. See this. We already have an article on the Great Tea Race of 1866. —Srnec (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsThe history blog on tea races offered by Srnec has every sign of relying on Great Tea Race of 1866 as its sole source (find a fact in the blog that is not in the Wikipedia article).
    This subject is plagued with poorly researched books/sources – WP:HISTRS should be firmly applied. David R. MacGregor is a key source for the subject, with many more books than the one listed in the Great Tea Race article. Basil Lubbock is another important source, but can be demonstrated to have problems, so needs to be used with care.
    The JSTOR article is not supported by others writing in the field. (Note where the author had worked. I would deem the JSTOR article a primary source. The key point is whether there was the high level of interest in any races in the press, or whether a premium was written into the bill of lading of any steamer. Sources do not say that either applied, and my own searches of newspapers confirms that point.) The steamer trade rapidly suffered from overcapacity, resulting in the Far Eastern Freight Conference.
    Wikipedia has, IMHO, a reasonable set of articles that cover this range subjects, with the weak point being Clipper, which does not cover the tea trade in these ships well and needs expansion – but from quality sources. If the steamship races were to be felt important, there is space in Steamship#Long-distance commercial steamships for some comment, and something would be appropriate in the yet-to-be-written section of Clipper. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thing is, I would not have expected an article on clippers (or steamships) to cover any particular trade in detail at all. That is what struck me first about the nom—that the tea races should be folded into clipper is extremely nonintuitive to me, that the present article should be regarded as a fork of the ship article likewise. Perhaps split tea clipper out. Srnec (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Clippers were used on for a small range of cargoes over a limited number of routes. With speed being something close to a defining characteristic of this sort of vessel, I am puzzled why their relative speeds should be nonintuitive. The subject occupies a large part of any RS on the subject. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments If the race has an important historical event, which was covered in the press, watched by the whole country, the topic can be covered in a separate article. Quote: Indeed, the annual tea race was a Victorian sensation: the ships' progress was reported by telegraph and could be followed in the papers. I've added sources to the article. There's a pdf in the link below.--Товболатов (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Performance Evaluation of the 19th Century Clipper Ship Cutty Sark: A Comparative Study--Товболатов (talk) 12:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename Tea races. While the 1866 race is the most famous, the 1872 one is notable as well (also at Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race Cutty Sark and Thermopylae). There are sources out there, e.g. The Tea Races of the 19th Century (Hudson River Maritime Museum), multiple chapters each dedicated to a specific tea race in The China Clippers. AfD is not for cleanup. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. There's a discussion to be had in talk pages, on how the various articles should be split up or merged, but it's become pretty clear these tea race articles all meet GNG, and there's no gratuitous CONTENTFORKing, just cleanup and improvement. Including this collective subject. —siroχo 03:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clear pass of GNG and the subject is dsitinct from Clipper. As per Clarityfiend, deletion is not for cleanup, and if the cleanup requires merges or consolidation, a considered structured merge, considering all related articles, would be better than imposing one from AfD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pagaivanuku Arulvai[edit]

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

Previously included at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puthiya Mugam (unreleased film). Unreleased since 2021. The contents are well sourced so this article is better draftified. Per Wikipedia:Notability (films), Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines DareshMohan (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I agree not a notable film. Delete it. I created this article because someone requested me on my talk page, later regreted for creating this article. Hyderabadi (talk) 02:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Draftification is an WP:ATD option but I think it's easy enough to recreate if it is both released and asserted to be notable. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Democratic Republic of the Congo women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 20:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mwalutshe Bwadi[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Democratic Republic of the Congo women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least one cap for the Democratic Republic of the Congo women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sencer Sarı[edit]

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

This artist and academic does not meet notability criteria for WP:NPROF nor WP:NARTIST. At first glance it appears to be well sourced however, after investigating all of the sources, it seems they are all either primary sources (his own website, his schools, thesis, disertation, shows, papers, etc.) His H-index on Google Scholar is virtually zero so fails notable academic, and an exhaustive web search doesn't find anything in the way of significant coverage we would usually find for an artist, such as notable exhibitions, reviews, museum collections, etc. Thus failing NARTIST and also WP:GNG. Please see the source assessment table linked below. The only source that is viable and would count as SIGCOV is the one for Fokus magazine. The only other source of interest is the interview on Green Belarus, but it's a primary source of him talking about himself with no in-depth editorial input. I'm guessing that this may be an autobiography or a connected contributor's creation (and edited by several WP:SPAs). Bringing it here for the community to decide.

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
"Court Case #2012/253-331" (in Turkish) (58118 www.bik.gov.tr) No court case documet Yes No ✘ No
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sencer-Sari No user submitted bio/CV on Research Gate ~ No primary source (nor are citations listed) ✘ No
7/3/1992-2/10/2017 tarih aralığında kayıtlanan 1/1/2003-2/10/2017 tarih aralığında mezun olan öğrenciler ÇÖMÜ No list of students who graduated from the school he attended Yes No ✘ No
https://avesis.comu.edu.tr/yonetilen-tez/539e3916-764e-4d17-af65-94b4b98a8797/dusuk-dereceli-750-1020-c-kromatli-sirlar No his own Master's thesis Yes No primary source ✘ No
https://www.academia.edu/8312559 No a paper he wrote, posted on Academia.edu Yes No primary source ✘ No
http://sencersari.com/wrd/?page_id=886 No his own website ? No primary source ✘ No
Artvisit 1 International designer & artist works. WorldCat (in Turkish). pp. 530–531. ISBN 9944-312-01-0. OCLC 75243672. Yes seems to be an art exhibit catalog Yes ? unverifiable, as ISBN is dead, OCLC points to WorldCat ? Unknown
http://nha.bg/uploads/ckeditor/AVTOREFERAT-senger-sary.pdf No his own PhD Thesis Yes No primary source ✘ No
http://nha.bg/uploads/ckeditor/AVTOREFERAT-senger-sary.pdf Yes List of artists registered with Turkey Yes No Name check - just lists his name ✘ No
https://sab.yildiz.edu.tr/haberler/Araştırma-Görevlimiz-Burak-BOYRAZ-%22Ekim-Buluşması-2%22-Sergisinde/92 No name listed as workshop attendee Yes No name check only ✘ No
https://rayp.adalet.gov.tr/resimler/494/dosya/bilirkisilistesi-1407202004-09-202009-24.pdf Yes Yes No List of "regional experts" but can't find his name ✘ No
https://art.edu.ge/aceng/index.php?do=cat&category=3-4-2 No School where he teaches Yes No does not mention his name at all ✘ No
https://www.academia.edu/8312440 No a paper he wrote ~ Academia.com (not sure if this was published) No primary source ✘ No
https://greenbelarus.info/articles/22-10-2021/rabotat-s-uranom-srodni-religii-kak-professor-keramiki-polyubil-radioaktivnoe No Interview Yes seems like a web-magazine or blog "Green Belarus" No Interview (primary source) ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20150402140551/http://www.zucder.org.tr/imgs/dergi43.pdf Yes Fokus Magazine Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://vuzf.bg/novini/263 ? Yes No Photo of him and photo caption ✘ No
http://sencersari.com/wrd/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/vuzf.jpg No primary source Yes No Certificate proving he had a show and gave a seminar about it ✘ No
http://sencersari.com/wrd/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/vienna.jpg No letter on his own website that he gave a lecture and workshop at a ceramic studio ~ No primary source ✘ No
https://www.academia.edu/8312440 No his own paper on Academic.edu Yes No primary source ✘ No
NK4267 .U487 Kayıt no: 4048. Anadolu Üniversitesi (NK4267 .U487 Registration number: 4048. Anadolu University) ? ? ? ? Unknown
https://www.vda.lt/lt/studiju_programos/bakalauro-ir-vientisuju-studiju-programos/keramika/keramika-bakalauro-studijos-vilnius/vizituojantys-menininkai/sencer-sari No Yes No his bio/CV at his own institution ✘ No
Altın Testi Seramik Yarışması. İzmir Rotary. 2006 No Yes Rotary Club exhibit announcement No press release, primary source ✘ No
https://serfed.com/tr/content.php?content_id=68 No ? ? dead link of Rotary Club show ✘ No
İsli Pişirim Etkinliği" Seramik Sergisi davetiyesi" (Press release) (in Turkish). İzmir Adnan Franko Art Gallery. No press release Yes No primary source, press release ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20150222201706/http://www.antoloji.com/etkinlik/?etkinlik=3067 No Yes No press release/calendar listing for a show ✘ No
https://www.sondakika.com/dunya/ Yes Yes seems to be a news site No doesn't mention him at all ✘ No
http://v3.arkitera.com/arsgratiaartis.php?action=displayNewsItem&ID=20725 ? ? ? dead link ? Unknown
http://sencersari.com/wrd/?page_id=144 No his own website No No primary source ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20150402194614/http://www.ilkezgi.com/sergiler/icalrepeat.detail/2014/10/20/2561/-/sencer-sari-porselen-heykel-sergisi-denizden-gelenler?tmpl=component Yes Yes No event listing (calendar listing) ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20160305174555/http://yabangee.com/2014/11/starting-saturday-istanbul-art-fair-feat-yabangees-gabrielle-reeves/ Yes Yes No doesn't mention him at all ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20141021090016/http://sanat-magazin.com/2014/10/20/20-ekim-2014-pazartesi-sergi-ve-etkinlikler/ Yes Yes No event listing (calendar listing) ✘ No
https://www.diena.lv/raksts/kd/maksla/augusta-daugavpili-norisinasies-v-starptautiskais-keramikas-makslas-simpozijs-14176973 Yes Yes No doesn't mention him at all ✘ No
5th International Ceramic Art Symposium Ceramic Laboratory in Daugavpils, Latvia. ? ? ? seems to be the name of a show he ws in ? Unknown
http://sencersari.com/wrd/?page_id=2101 No his own website ~ No primary source ✘ No
https://www.vda.lt/lt/ No his own school Yes No no mention of his name ✘ No
http://sencersari.com/wrd/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Sencer-decadance.jpg No Yes No poster for a show he was in ✘ No
Art fest alchemy, batumi (13 September 2019). "poster". instahu. No ? No poster for a show ✘ No
https://portal.issn.org/resource/ISSN/1512-0899# Yes Yes No doesn't mention his name ✘ 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}}.
Netherzone (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cilician campaign of Kaykaus I[edit]

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

WP:BEFORE shows no evidence that this minor expedition has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. The one source I can access, the Encyclopedia of Islam, does not support what is written in the text at all, failing WP:V. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did you check Claude Cahen? His works would be the first I'd check and I would not be surprised if there is enough for an article. Srnec (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Here is a mention of "regular campaigns" by Kaykaus in Cilicia but nothing in-depth. Sourcing in this article appears to constitute a big problem, since much of the references are to historical sources such as Ibn Bibi, and some of the citations are insufficient. For example, I couldn't find the work titled Turkiye by Osman Turan. The closest is a book titled Selçuklular Zamanında Türkiye (transl. Turkey under the Seljuks), which might be it and may really include relevant content. Both Turan and Öngül (another source used in this article) were cited by RS and appear to be specialized in this particular period of history. I believe this article needs thorough editing by removing OR, rewording it to be neutral, checking whether each source verifies the content, so I wouldn't object a keep if much of these issues are solved or there is an apparent attempt to do so. I believe such articles or content would be valuable, but this article has a lot of issues. It could also be draftified, but a lot of time has passed, and the creator doesn't appear to be active. Aintabli (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article has a number of offline references; I default to trusting them for now. See the WP:SOURCEACCESS section of WP:V which is further explained in the Offline sources essay.
Note that this article was proposed for deletion and @User:Phil Bridger removed the tag. I'm pinging him.
The sources are likely to be hard to find and translate in the brief period an AfD is open. I support User:AirshipJungleman29 questioning them; he's been contending with multiple articles by @Soldier of Seljuk 1071. At the same time, I don't support deletion.
Soldier of Seljuk 1071, has not been active on en.wikipedia since March although they edited the Turkish Wikipedia 2 weeks ago. They have created several other articles on en.wikipedia with similar offline sourcing:
They also have some draft articles:
Soldier of Seljuk discussed some of their sourcing at Talk:Cilician campaign of Kaykaus I
A translation of their Turkish talk page, tr:Kullanıcı mesaj:Soldier of Seljuk 1071 (translation) shows they've had some history articles deleted there:
Zafer and Vikipolimer were the tr.wikipedia admins that deleted most of these and they both edit here. I would be interested to get their assessment of this and similar articles although I'm concerned that might be canvassing
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 17:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any further comments and feedback in the last 6 days, I'm pinging @Zafer and @Aintabli
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't comment further on the article itself. There appears to be a flood of related articles, and I'm concerned of possible sock or meatpuppetry. I lean towards deletion. Aintabli (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @A. B., my english isn't perfect, but yes I think that the articles opened by this user with unverifiable sources are fake historiography. Regards, Zafer (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am pretty sure there was a deletion discussion last year about an earlier incarnation of this article, but there is such a flood of Turkish battlebollox on this site it’s hard to be sure it wasn’t something different but equally dubious. Given the tendency of highly inventive article creators to exclusively cite offline sources I don’t think we can take anything here as being fit to put out to our readers. No objection to draftification. Mccapra (talk) 20:34, 31 July 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of films with post-credits scenes[edit]

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

I invite the community to consider whether this list is appropriate. —S Marshall T/C 17:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 17:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the selection criteria seems narrow enough, and post-credits scenes as a concept are a notable topic (as reflected by having their own article as well. Hard to respond otherwise when no reason for deletion is given. --AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Impossibly large list of a niche, unhelpful topic where WP:NLIST is not shown to be met. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per WP:FANCRUFT/WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia is not a collection of movie trivia. Ajf773 (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is an appropriate companion list for the notable topic covered at post-credits scene. The list is a reasonable length and its selection criteria are sufficiently discriminate, and the members of the list are independently notable and provably members of the group. Nominator did not provide a deletion rationale and the subsequent delete arguments amount to WP:IDLI. Note that I declined a G4 speedy deletion request on this for the sole reason that the previous discussion was sixteen years ago. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:NLIST. Lots of coverage of this grouping. [12][13][14][15][16][17]. —siroχo 22:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh, I doubt articles discussing post-credits scenes as a phenomenon (especially the firsts and famous) is the same as distinctly making note of all post-credits scenes. The actual page at post-credits scenes already mentions what the articles you linked cover (the use in superhero movies, The Muppet Movie, the first use in The Silencers, using it for bloopers, etc.). When all the encyclopedic examples are already covered in the article, it makes it hard to justify a list of every single post-credits scene. I don't see how there's a strong selection criteria, either. If simply being a member of the group is criteria, then it's too broad for this purpose. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NLIST states 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. It's also ok that information overlaps with another article, stand-alone lists are generally accepted on wikipedia: WP:SAL. In fact, it's quite common for subjects to have a main prose article and a separate standalone list. Note also that this list fulfills WP:LISTPURPOSE as an informational list. The selection criteria are clear, WP:LSC has no suggestion of broad inclusion criteria being disqualifying. I apologize but I don't see a policy/guideline-related reason to delete this list. —siroχo 23:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The guideline says: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". It has: see sources provided above by Siroxo; and, for exapmple
  1. https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/10-best-non-superhero-post-credit-scenes/
  2. https://movieweb.com/post-credits-scene-earliest-movies/
  3. https://variety.com/lists/marvel-studios-post-credits-scenes-ranked/
  4. https://bloody-disgusting.com/editorials/3625230/10-best-post-credit-scenes-horror/
  5. https://www.looper.com/150495/the-best-end-credits-scenes-ever/
etc,. It varies in scope and approach but it has been discussed as a group by independent reliable sources. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator: I don't understand the criticism that I "didn't supply a deletion rationale". Surely that's self-evident to anyone who's read the list closely enough to !vote here. Because it doesn't have even so much as a definition of what a "post-credits scene" is, this list has filled up with unsourced trivia. It's all crufted up with entries about things that happen during the credits rather than after them, and/or things that aren't movie scenes at all, but blooper reels, out-takes, and even stills. If Wikipedia really does need a List of films with post-credits scenes, then this isn't a useful starting point and we should TNT it.—S Marshall T/C 15:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose that a note (or a small M somewhere, or a colour) could indicate when the entry is about a mid-credit scene (default being post-credit) (although the entry makes that cleat when it is the case). But is this really the main issue? Did you mean that 2 lists should be made: one for mid-cs, the other for post-cs? But mid-credit scenes redirects to Post-credit scene, the latter being considered the generic term (which is also the case for the various forms those "scenes" take, a point that the LS clarifies immediately but that can be expanded).
    However, talking about self-evident, the definition of post-credit scene is in the hyperlink present in the lead section and seems rather clear but it can be added in the text if you think that makes a difference.
    So I really cannot see any issue with that list, personally, notability included.
    As for a reason to delete the page, you did provide a rationale but "appropriate" is a rather vague term, I'm afraid. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You really don't see a single OR issue anywhere on that page? :)—S Marshall T/C 19:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't. Either a film contains a post-credit scene or it does not. If reliable sources are added, I can't see what the problem is. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And that of course is the challenge for the "keep" side of this debate: to add those reliable sources you've just mentioned.—S Marshall T/C 20:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:NEXIST and the sources provided above. The article itself does not need to be sourced as part of this discussion or as a requirement to keep it. Similarly, per policy (WP:IMPERFECT) it does not need to be sourced all at once. —siroχo 20:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't think that's right. The list does need to be sourced---not as part of this discussion, but yes, by someone, at some point, reliable sources do need to be added. WP:V applies here just like it does everywhere else in the mainspace. This content was challenged by tregoweth, so the burden of providing sources falls on those wanting to keep it in the encyclopaedia. I am of course mindful that there is no deadline... but tregoweth challenged it sixteen (16) years ago. How much longer do you expect to take?—S Marshall T/C 21:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it does need to be sourced, and not part of this discussion. I think we're in agreement on both pieces. I do think it's fine for AFD to shine a light on things, but it's also true that AfD is not cleanup.
    Given that this article was created ~12 years after the prior article was deleted, I think we should treat it as a separate article.
    Since removing every entry all at once as a CHALLENGE might be disruptive to the development of the article, probably the most productive thing here would be to tag each row {{cn}}, and then move forward from there. I am willing to add the tags if you think that's a way forward. I can add the articles we found as secondary sources to the appropriate row when I get a chance as well, as a starting point. —siroχo 21:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When the whole article's been tagged with {{cn}} for years, tagging the individual lines doesn't seem very productive to me. No, the ideal outcome here is very much to TNT this, and optionally start again with clear definitions and sources; but if that's obstructed, then I think it's best to remove the all unsourced content in accordance with the policy. There wouldn't be much left, would there?—S Marshall T/C 22:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please hear me, I'm willing to help out. I'm really hoping I will not be prevented from doing so. The article can easily be improved, it's not in an irredeemable state, I've worked on articles in far worse states before. Here's a non-list article I worked on quite recently [18] that was cited purely to primary sources.
    I do not view the ideal outcome as TNT, as that would hamper the process of sourcing. And the main issue here is that it's just very lightly referenced. This is not a BLP, we can work on referencing over time. I proposed my solution because there truly isn't yet single {{cn}} or {{citation needed}} on the entire article at this time, and an article-wide {{unreferenced}} is notoriously unhelpful in cases where there are some references, because when editors see that its not actually unreferenced, they aren't necessarily sure what the issue is. I'd like to improve things here. —siroχo 23:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there's an opportunity for a compromise outcome right there. How about we agree to userfy the whole list to your userspace, and you can move it back into mainspace when you're happy that it's no longer a disgrace to our core content policies?—S Marshall T/C 23:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My !vote will remain keep but draftifying is acceptable if that's the consensus. —siroχo 23:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't speak for anyone else, but I called out your no-rationale nomination because the nominator in an AfD discussion is expected to present an argument supporting deletion, and not having done so is criterion for speedy keep number one. I read your nomination as having no opinion, not as you've since explained that you think it's obvious to anyone who reads the list that it should be deleted, and you still haven't explained why. If it's so obvious to you then it should be quite easy to explain your argument and ground it in our policies and guidelines, but really it seems more like you don't like that it exists and that's the end of your argument. You certainly haven't convinced me, at least.
    As for the issue you've highlighted with sourcing, it isn't. None of the information in this list qualifies for the requirement to be sourced inline, and is generally verifiable through sources in the listed articles (I have not checked them all but this is universally true of the ones I have checked) and that is good enough for WP:V. And yes, MINREF includes "material that has been challenged" but don't demand inline sources just to prove a point. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You, a sysop, really don't see the OR issues on that page? Genuinely?—S Marshall T/C 17:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it satisfies NLIST. P.S. If the nominator had bothered to check, Post-credits scene states it is also known as mid-credits scene. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Its actually very useful list DoctorHver (talk) 03:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Botswana women's international footballers. Courcelles (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lesego Keleboge[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Botswana women's international footballers. The subject has played for the Botswana women's national football team, but I cannot confirm the number of games. Regardless, I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect as above. Botswana seems to have relatively robust sports journalism infrastructure and subject is only mentioned in match summaries. Danish Ranger (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Botswana women's international footballers. Courcelles (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Balotlhanyi Johannes[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Botswana women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least eight caps for the Botswana women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect as above. Botswana seems to have relatively robust sports journalism infrastructure and subject is only mentioned in match summaries. Danish Ranger (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Eighth Doctor#Mary Shelley. Courcelles (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Shelley (Doctor Who)[edit]

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

While generally notable as a companion in universe and a notable fictional portrayal of Shelley, I can't find any sources relating to the character of Mary Shelley as a companion. I only found sources relating to The Haunting of Villa Diodati, which doesn't acknowledge this companionship, and none of the articles bar this one: https://www.themarysue.com/mary-shelley-deserved-better-on-doctor-who/ Actually discuss her in depth. I don't think there's grounds to justify the existence of the article separately. She's mentioned in both the Companion and List of Doctor Who Supporting Characters articles, so a redirect there may work as an alternative to deletion. Pokelego999 (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. Pokelego999 (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Companion (Doctor Who), where she is already listed. Her only appearances as a companion were in largely non-notable spinoff material, and her only appearance in the show proper was in a one-off episode that did not acknowledge those spinoff appearances. There are not enough sources to demonstrate this fictional version of Shelley is notable enough for an article. Rorshacma (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ramit Maski Rana[edit]

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

Fails WP:SINGER or WP:GNG since all of the references are from local news websites, the majority of which appear to be sponsored and use the same script. He has only sung three unpopular songs as a singer. The accolades mentioned in the article are unremarkable since a Google search found no results. Additionally, the username of this article's creator matches the domain name of one of the sources in this article, indicating WP:COI or WP:UPE. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 16:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only receiving 20 search results, with them being social media sites of the singer. Can't find any news etc, current sources are only local too anyway. Awards also don't seem to be notable — Karnataka talk 16:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://artistkhabar.com/content/12413
७. सर्वोत्कृष्ट नव गायक रमित मास्की राना
https://kantipurpati.com/news/8831
७. नव गायक-रमित मास्की राना Bbmr (talk) 05:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awards :
https://artistkhabar.com/content/12413
७. सर्वोत्कृष्ट नव गायक रमित मास्की राना
https://kantipurpati.com/news/8831
७. नव गायक-रमित मास्की राना Bbmr (talk) 05:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Award Link : https://scontent.fbhr1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/363064695_217638554593349_7035286855467065123_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&cb=99be929b-59f725be&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=ae9488&_nc_ohc=eeZdiG0dcUMAX-dutRt&_nc_ht=scontent.fbhr1-1.fna&oh=03_AdS8lsa_zdrW_EPmigeuqn2beThveiZG4mudpcASkn_XAQ&oe=64EFF225 Bbmr (talk) 05:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbmr Artistkhabar.com appears to be a blog: I can't find a listing of who's on the editorial staff, for instance. Neither does kantipurpati.com list who is on their staff. Finally, the "Award Link" is to an image: no context, no explanation of the award. Effectively, it tells us nothing about the award. —C.Fred (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what can i do ? Bbmr (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't believe it, delete it. I don't care. Faith is a big thing. Bbmr (talk) 10:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - I don't think this article is passing WP:GNG and WP:VER guidliness, fails to prove WP:NBIO and this article is releated to WP:COl. Kind regards –––ÀvîRâm7(talk) 8:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. There is a challenge in doing a Google search because of the transliteration of his name. I would like to hear what a WikiProject Nepal member has found based on searching in Nepali. I initially allowed this article to stay in mainspace when it was brought over from draft because of the award and related assertion of notability. If it's a situation where we just aren't hitting the sources because of the language issue, and somebody who speaks Nepali can help us out, then we're in good shape. On the other hand, if all the sources are just passing mentions or from a website that shares its name with the creating editor, then not only do we have an article that fails WP:GNG, but we also have a COI/UPE issue with the article's original editor. —C.Fred (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't believe it, delete it. I don't care. Faith is a big thing. Bbmr (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:1E. No WP:INDEPTH coverage or mention could be found except the award event. nirmal (talk) 10:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't believe it, delete it. I don't care. Faith is a big thing. Bbmr (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bbmr we have WP:goodfaith on you, but at the current stage, the content of the article is not well supported. You can add offline references if you have such access to prove that the topic is notable. nirmal (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Complex/Rational 19:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GENIVI Alliance[edit]

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

Promotional article, limited or no sources that are independent, and doesn't appear to meet general notability. Andre🚐 15:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

End of Everything[edit]

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

Cannot find any evidence this band is notable. Previously deprodded in 2007 with reasons that amount to inherited notability * Pppery * it has begun... 14:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Three (End of Everything album) should also be deleted. BoxxyBoy (talk) 05:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Pokémon World Championships. (non-admin closure) — Karnataka talk 20:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Unite at the 2023 Pokémon World Championships[edit]

Pokémon Unite at the 2023 Pokémon World Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Full of fancruft (e.g. the roster table) and no non-primary sources. Fails WP:GNG. At best, a very limited amount of this information should be merged to 2023 Pokémon World Championships. – Pbrks (t • c) 14:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into 2013 Pokémon World Championships per nomination, the championship as a whole is notable, but not the Unite competitions as a separate event. --AlexandraAVX (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per AlexandraAVX. Unlikely to meet have enough sourcing to sustain its own article, but it can be covered in the parent article, which is quite short usually. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, although the main page of 2023 Pokémon World Championships can get exhaustive and only concern a limited pool of people to read all of it. There are 8 events for 4 games. Sqldf03 (talk) 04:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Sean Turnell. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Burma Economic Watch[edit]

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

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Of the 4 sources currently in the article, 3 are just in-passing mentions and 1 goes to a login page on the website of the university that publishes this journal. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merging what to all appearances is a very minor publication to the article on the university may well be UNDUE... --Randykitty (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Merge to Sean Turnell (with a very brief mention of both the group and the bulletin). I agree that this seems to be "a very minor publication", and not in se worth an article. On the other hand, Sean Turnell indeed is noteworthy - but probably more for his imprisonment after the coup d'état than for either his academic work or his brief rôle as an economic policy advisor to Aung San Suu Kyi. (However, I see that our article about Turnell was started under his time as advisor, whence that activity probably should be regarded as more noteworthy than just the academic work.) However, these three sides of Turnell's life are related. The fact that he initiated the group Burma Economic Watch, and was (and is?) a coeditor of the academic bulletin with the same name, and that it was in their rôles as editors of this BEW that he and Alison Vicary urged continuing economic reprisals against the military leadership in Myanmar during the previous open military rule is somewhat relevant, I think, both for why Suu Kyi chose him as advisor, and why the present junta had him imprisoned.
    Thus, IMHO, a brief mention in one or two sentences and some of the references from the present Burma Economic Watch article indeed would improve the Turnell article. JoergenB (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Sean Turnell. I agree with JoergenB's reasoning; this does not appear to be independently notable, but Turnell is closely enough connected to make a good merge target. I have added neutrally-worded notifications to Talk:Macquarie University and Talk:Sean Turnell as I think should be a required part of the process whenever a merge is considered at an AfD. To do otherwise risks getting two conflicting local consensuses at the AfD and the merge target. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soh Ohba[edit]

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

Reference 1 is a stat site; 2 is a list of rankings (inaccurate rankings at that, it lists several boxers who retired years ago); 3 is irrelevant; 4 does nothing for notability and mentions a family member more than the subject anyway; 5 looks like it's written by the subject themself--uses "I" a few times, and the article has been republished by various outlets (implying the subject sent it to publishers); and 6 is the subject's blog so is irrelevant to notability. My BEFORE search found nothing of substance in English. Searches in Japanese seemed much of the same, but I had to use Google translate so could have missed some strong sources. Looks like an attempt at self-promotion by the subject (who has apparently created or substantially edited the article), failing GNG. – 2.O.Boxing 11:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Boxing, and Japan. 2.O.Boxing 11:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Conservatism. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There definitely appears to be COI issues with this article. More important, however, are the facts that he appears to fail both WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. Rankings by any of the many minor boxing organizations fail to show WP notability. Articles about these rankings, visiting his uncle's grave, database entries, or his personal blog do not show the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. He also inherits no WP notability for his uncle having been a notable boxer. Papaursa (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Major SPA, COI issues, dubious notability, it has been edited by bad faith/unsourced/COI editors so much that its honestly hard to know where to start when removing bad content. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to BT (musician). Liz Read! Talk! 07:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10 Years in the Life[edit]

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

Seems Non-notable. Charsaddian (talk) 10:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brian Transeau: Sources on page (including Resident Advisor which is a message board post, archived here) are unreliable. The only additional coverage I could find is this article in Vue Weekly, and while it's good coverage, the article can't stay if it's the only good coverage available. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brian Transeau. One dead link, two unreliable sources and an Amazon listing.
BoxxyBoy (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
QuietHere and BoxxyBoy, Brian Transeau is a redirect. So are you arguing to redirect to the same target that it directs to? Liz Read! Talk! 05:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Apologies for not checking that. The target is the same guy under an alias so that should be perfectly fine. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. Redirect to BT (musician) BoxxyBoy (talk) 06:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Ashima Bhalla. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zinda Dil (2003 film)[edit]

Zinda Dil (2003 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Found no sources whatsoever. DareshMohan (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 13:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

K32OV-D[edit]

AfDs for this article:
K32OV-D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another non-notable HC2 LPTV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's a bit older than some other HC2/Innovate stations, being previously owned by Mako Communications and starting in 2004, but that doesn't count for much if there are no non-FCC or directory reliable sources and all it's ever been known to air are 24/7 networks. The article has been around since 2006, but that was a time when notability standards sitewide were much looser than they are now (and keep in mind they were still, at least de facto, much looser in this topic area than elsewhere until relatively recently). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aksel Bellabbaci[edit]

The article does not meet WP:Notability and there is not a single credible source in the local or international press that focuses specifically on the person in question. the references appear to use his name with fake article titles to create the impression that they are all centered on the person, which is a clear violation of Wikipedia's guidelines.Riad Salih (talk) 12:34, 31 July 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August Cinema[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. No independent reliable sources about the company, only passing mentions in routine coverage about films. The Doom Patrol (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karadak front[edit]

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

A duplicate article of the article 2001 insurgency in Macedonia and other 2001 Macedonian insurgency battle articles, with some POV fork tendencies too. On top of that, none of the sources refer to a "Karadak front", so this article has no purpose being on Wikipedia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it's a front to take control of the Lipkovo-Kumanovo region and in a front there are series of battles I don't know why you think it shouldn't be on Wikipedia Jesssiemen (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete excessive information, most of which is already included in multiple different articles, but mainly in 2001 insurgency in Macedonia. Jingiby (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like every war the 2001 insurgency in Macedonia had fronts (Karadak and Pollog), and this particular one was to take control of the Kumanovo-Lipkovo region. If this page should get deleted because most of the battles in the front already have pages, why don't we delete fronts like the Western and Eastern fronts from both World Wars? Because most to all the battles already have pages of their own. Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with having a front article, but the difference between those fronts and this so-called front is that the former are widely covered by reliable sources. I have not seen any reliable sources that use the very term "Karadak front". If it was notable, it'd have something unique, rather than simply repeat information from other articles. StephenMacky1 (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a translation of my Albanian article "Fronti i Karadakut." It is a compilation of a series of battles that happened in the region, which I created due to the lack of information on the Albanian Wikipedia. I don't see a reason to have an English version of it, since the majority of the battles already have their own Wikipages. GermanManFromFrankfurt (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As nom pointed out, I haven't seen this term used in RS. --Local hero talk 02:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Google does not show any hits for this term outside of Wikipedia. The total lack of sources means this term should not be an article title. PhilKnight (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Wonder Woman#Other versions. Clear consensus, despite one keep, to redirect the article. The nom also endorsed redirecting. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 11:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of Wonder Woman[edit]

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

Another poorly referenced fan trivial this one in a bad list format to boot. References are 100% comic books (primary fiction sources). The topic fails WP:GNG and is nothing but a plot summary. At best, we can consider SOFTDELETE by redirecting this to Wonder Woman (no objection to merging a bit of plot summary if anyone thinks it is relevant). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That means that if anyone with access to the works themselves can readily verify what they say, then identifying those sources in the article text—with or without inline citations to them—provides valid sources. It might nonetheless be a good idea to cite them and find additional sources that mention some of the relevant details, just in order to demonstrate that valid sources exist to editors who aren't aware of this, and to improve the article in general.
But as long as sources for the contents of the article are in fact present—i.e. the names of the works identifying what they consist of—a lack of citations for many of the entries does not mean that there are no sources! Not to mention that WP:BEFORE requires the nominator to make a good faith effort to find sources before making this argument in the first place—and that cannot have been done if the nominator failed to consider the works themselves as sources for their own contents. Poor sourcing is not a valid argument for deletion—it is an argument for improving an article by adding sources.
Merely asserting that a topic fails the general notability guidelines isn't an argument—it's a lazy claim that something isn't important enough to cover because the nominator doesn't care about it. But mass-market fiction is usually notable, and the subject of this article is something read by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, as part of a media franchise several decades old that includes notable film and television productions arising out of the same comic book series, known to hundreds of millions of people. The argument, which the nominator failed to state clearly, runs along the lines, "it's bad enough that Wikipedia has to have articles about comic book characters—it shouldn't allow topics too large to be conveniently or comprehensively treated in those articles to be split off into separate articles."
But that would make articles about comic book characters different from all other articles on Wikipedia; splitting is ordinarily appropriate in order to cover topics—such as alternate versions of characters treated in different versions of a franchise and associated media—in sufficient detail. It would be valid to argue that some of these versions are covered in excessive detail and could stand to be trimmed; but that is an argument to improve the article, not to delete it.
The argument about "plot" is clearly wrong. If the article consisted of one plot in one work, then it would clearly be excessive. But because each individual work treated has its own plot, and it would be necessary to explain how the character is treated in each work, some degree of plot summary is probably required for each entry. Again, it's quite likely that some of these could be trimmed. But that's an argument for improving the article, not deleting it.
Merging the article into the main one on Wonder Woman is not appropriate, as this article, even with substantial and appropriate trimming, would be excessively long and detailed to be folded into a section there. In fact that article already has a very long section on this topic, that doesn't—and probably can't—begin to cover the subject comprehensively. That's why it's split off into its own article. It's a valid reason for splitting—and precisely what Wikipedia guidelines on article size recommends doing. The arguments for merging come down to, "this isn't an important subject, therefore it can't have its own article," and that conflicts with Wikipedia's guidelines for article size and splitting large topics, which should prevail in any argument for merging.
We don't care that an article was written by "fans" of a topic—most Wikipedia articles are! The topic is evidently notable, and while the article could probably use a lot of trimming—of details, not simply trashing whole sections on the grounds that they can't be worth covering—and better (and more obvious) source citations, it is clearly possible to improve it, and it is not a candidate for merging into the main article about Wonder Woman, so it should be kept where it is. P Aculeius (talk) 13:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Works of fiction are indeed valid sources for their own content in the form of pure plot details, but (1) they do not establish notability, especially not in a case like this where they would be examples of an overarching topic rather than themselves the subject of the article, (2) they do not establish weight, and (3) policy explicitly prohibits basing entire articles on primary sources. TompaDompa (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main topic here is Wonder Woman, who is unquestionably notable. If a topic is notable, subtopics that are large enough to be split off from the main article are presumptively notable. An argument could be made that the subject of this article is not sufficiently notable when treated separately, but the nominator hasn't overcome the presumption of notability merely by calling it fancruft. Plot points of notable literature tend to be notable, and don't cease being notable merely because they're split off due to size. Weight of course goes to how the article should be trimmed, but that's not an argument for deletion; even if the article needs to be substantially trimmed, it should be kept. As for secondary sources, I happen to know that they're available—I've seen articles about the evolution of Wonder Woman over the decades on the New York Times, and I haven't even been looking. Some of the plot lines in this article are definitely documented in other sources.
But AfD isn't based on whether the article already has good sources, but on whether suitable sources exist. The nominator does not appear to have looked for them, and therefore failed to carry out WP:BEFORE. This nomination is fatally flawed because it is based on the present sourcing—much of which is acceptable, if inadequate—and much more of which exists and could be added to the article. It is explicitly the responsibility of editors wishing to delete articles to search for reliable sources—not the responsibility of editors who don't think deletion is warranted to find and incorporate them in order to avoid the articles being deleted. I know that's how these discussions often turn out—nominators creating mountains of work for other editors because they couldn't be asked to follow WP:BEFORE—but that's not what AfD policy says. P Aculeius (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the topic here is Alternative versions of Wonder Woman, not Wonder Woman. It is not the case that subtopics that are large enough to be split off from the main article are presumptively notable; notability is not inherited like that. Even if it were, that still would do nothing to address the issue of this article being completely based on primary sources in direct violation of policy and primary sources not doing anything to establish weight. The size argument also doesn't make a whole lot of sense absent proper sources—how on Earth would one know if this actually is large enough to be split off from the main article without surveying the relevant literature to assess the proper weight in WP:PROPORTION to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject? What's more, you're asking the nominator to prove a negative when you say that the nominator hasn't overcome the presumption of notability. Finally, I put it to you that the person who creat[ed] mountains of work for other editors is whoever added a bunch of material based on primary sources in the first place, because at best it will all need to be done once over again based on secondary sources to make sure it properly reflects them in terms of relative weight of different aspects and so on. TompaDompa (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are arguments for improving the article, not for deleting it. And it is absolutely the responsibility of someone who nominates an article for deletion due to a lack of citations to reliable, independent sources to undertake a reasonable search for them. The nominator does not need to prove that such sources do not exist; but if the nominator searched known or available sources that might be expected to contain some of the relevant information, and found nothing, that would be sufficient to support the nomination. The sources do not need to corroborate all of the details of individual plots; for that the article may cite the works themselves.
What is not acceptable is to claim that the article should be deleted because it is fancruft about a comic book character and cites only primary sources—the first is a subjective judgment by the nominator about a notable body of fiction, and the second can be remedied by searching for and citing independent sources for at least some of the article—something which is certainly possible, since such sources are known to exist. The nominator cannot be forced to search for or incorporate any sources—but if he does not, then the nomination must fail and the article should be kept. P Aculeius (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the article contains no properly-sourced material (as is the case here), redirecting is a perfectly cromulent WP:Alternative to deletion—and was suggested in the nomination, as you can plainly see. Arguing that it should be kept without even entertaining that option is a ridiculous absolutist position. TompaDompa (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, AfD policy clearly states that the question is whether sources exist, not whether they are presently cited in the article—and as I've said multiple times, I know that sources for this exist, because I've seen and read some. WP:BEFORE requires a reasonable search for sources before an article can be deleted for lack thereof—if sources can be located with a reasonably diligent effort to find them, then the article should not be nominated for deletion, irrespective of whether anyone has bothered to cite them in the article. Since the nominator failed to do so, and no attempt to find or incorporate sources is shown in either the nomination or the subsequent discussion, this article is not even a candidate for deletion. And you yourself admitted that the article contains valid sources for most of its contents—just not independent ones. It doesn't take a lot of them to support the article, but AfD policy is clear, and this nomination fails to comport with that policy, so it must be kept. P Aculeius (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, a ridiculous absolutist position. If you have the means to turn this into a properly-sourced article, great—do that. But until that happens, there is no reason to retain this version that would need to be remade completely from scratch. You have presented no argument whatsoever that would preclude redirecting this to Wonder Woman#Other versions until such a time. TompaDompa (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wonder Woman#Other versions - While a few of the individual versions of Wonder Woman may have some reliable sources discussing them, and should be covered in prose format on the main Wonder Woman article, the overall topic of every "alternative" version of the character does not have the sources to pass the WP:GNG as a distinct topic nor WP:LISTN as a valid list. This list does not contain a single non-primary source and the vast majority of the entries here are extremely minor variants of the character that only featured in single Elseworld style stories, so a simple Redirect would be sufficient as an WP:ATD. Rorshacma (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As already stated, WP:BEFORE requires a reasonable search for sources to support an article before it is nominated for deletion. That has not been done. There are most certainly independent sources for some of the article's contents. Not every item in a list needs to be individually notable, as long as the overall topic is, and just a few independent sources would demonstrate that. But the present state of sourcing is not relevant to AfD: it's whether suitable sources exist, not whether they've been cited or incorporated into the article. AfD cannot proceed until a good faith effort has been made to locate independent sources to support it. P Aculeius (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not every item in a list needs to be individually notable – no, but per WP:PROPORTION they do need to be covered in sources on the overarching topic. Is that the case? Then cite those sources and present the various aspects with a relative weight corresponding to their treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Until that is done, there exists no case against redirecting this to Wonder Woman#Other versions in the meantime. I'm sure you know that even notable topics do not always warrant a stand-alone article, as per WP:PAGEDECIDE. TompaDompa (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "There are most certainly independent sources". Asserting WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES several times is not going to make you argument stronger. If there are sources, cite them. And if there are for some aspects of the article, then the problem of this being improperly framed remains. IF you find said sources, they can be used to expand the target article. Little of the fancruft here is encyclopedic, I fear. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:LISTN, a stand alone list may not require every item in the list to be individually notable, but does need to have been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". I have yet to find, nor see anyone present in this AFD, evidence of significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources that demonstrates the notability of the topic of alternate versions of Wonder Woman. And yes, despite your repeated assumption of bad faith that obviously WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES and thus if no one has found them then they obviously did not perform a WP:BEFORE search, I have searched for sources, and found nothing except a small handful of the typical churnalism "top ten" lists that are generally not considered reliable sources for the purpose of establishing notability. As I alluded to in my initial comment, any specific version that actually has any sources to show that they are slightly more notable than the multitude of one-shot versions that make up the majority of this list can be included in the appropriate section on the Wonder Woman article, which, per WP:NOPAGE, is a perfectly acceptable way of presenting that information. Rorshacma (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wonder Woman#Other versions which, if the plot summary was pared down to manageable levels, could definitely support all the notable parts of this list and more. Going back to the initial creation of this article, it was definitely not made with notability in mind. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Fiction can be sourced for its own story details, but WP:NOT tells us that articles must be more than WP:PLOT summaries. This cannot meet that standard because there isn't enough reliable reception, and so it fails WP:NOT and WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I can't find any in-depth coverage in Reliable sources about the topic "Alternative versions of Wonder Woman" (the only coverage I can find is from low quality listicles). Since notability is WP:NOTINHERITED this article needs to prove its own WP:GNG, which I can't see it doing. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 10:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I have held out for the purported usable sources to be cited as part of an effort to improve the article or at minimum be identified with enough specificity to enable somebody else to improve the article with them, but we're approaching five days since they were asserted to exist and that hasn't happened. As it stands, we have a perfectly reasonable redirect target in Wonder Woman#Other versions and none of the current content at the article under discussion is properly sourced. Turning this into a proper article based on secondary/tertiary sources on the overarching topic—Alternative versions of Wonder Woman—would be great, but it would necessitate starting over from scratch due to the fundamental problems with the current version. Until somebody takes the time to actually carry that out, redirecting is the way to go. TompaDompa (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think for most of these "Alternative versions" articles, where there isn't any reliable secondary coverage of the grouping, merge is the right solution, an WP:ATD both preserving history, and moving an appropriate amount of missing information into the main article. Redirect may be fine here as well. —siroχo 01:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Invisible Woman#Other versions. Content worth merging can be retrieved from the page history. ✗plicit 10:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of Invisible Woman[edit]

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

Another poorly referenced fan trivia. References are 100% comic books (primary fiction sources). The topic fails WP:GNG and is nothing but a plot summary. At best, we can consider SOFTDELETE by redirecting this to Invisible Woman (no objection to merging a bit of plot summary if anyone thinks it is relevant). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:09, 31 July 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 Hulk#Alternative versions of Hulk. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of the Hulk[edit]

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

Poorly referenced fan trivia. References are 100% comic books (primary fiction sources). The topic fails WP:GNG and is nothing but a plot summary. At best, we can consider SOFTDELETE by redirecting this to Hulk (no objection to merging a bit of plot summary if anyone think it is relevant). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Angels' I.S.C School, Thiruvananthapuram[edit]

Holy Angels' I.S.C School, Thiruvananthapuram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced since 2008, and is quite promotional. A PROD was removed in favour of an advert tag. Not sure if it was intentional or not. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 08:41, 31 July 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 Hulk#Alternative versions of Hulk. I selected this Merge target as the other mentioned in this discussion has also been nominated for a deletion discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hulk (Ultimate Marvel character)[edit]

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

Minor fictional character; probably not notable. One reference to a third-party source, but the mention of this character is very much in passing. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Bishko[edit]

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

Non-notable singer/songwriter. No significant coverage to meet WP:GNG Sabih omar 07:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I looked but didn't find enough to establish notability. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 13:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - all citations are mentions of her, so there is o deep coverage.Royal88888 (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found many primary sources, but no IRS. Suitskvarts (talk) 04:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Archey[edit]

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

Non-notable art critic. No significant coverage, so does not meet WP:GNG. The article is written like bio with no encyclopedic information or indication of notability.WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Sabih omar 07:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Karen Archey is a very well known and highly respected international curator who has organized many notable exhibitions at institutions such as the Stedelijk Museum; Amsterdam, the ICA, London; the New Museum of Contemporary Art, NYC, among other venues. Many of her shows have been reviewed, and her role as a curator is discussed (not just the artists in the shows). She is also a well known writer (not just as an "art critic" but as an art historian.) Won a prestigious writer's award from the Andy Warhol Foundation. I'm really surprised that neither of you were able to find anything on her online (I've noticed that Google gives different results sometimes, not sure if that is due to geography or browsing habits.) Later today or tomorrow I will see what I can find in a BEFORE search to establish notability. She's notable, that's for sure! Netherzone (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have added her recent book and two book reviews to the article. Beccaynr (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I also found and added a 2018 co-edited book, with a review, that Archey also contributed to [19] Beccaynr (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I started updating the article, including with sources from the Wikipedia Library - WP:BASIC/WP:CREATIVE notability seems to have support from her collective body of work; she has written a notable book (After Institutions) and I added sustained secondary coverage of her 2014 co-curated Art Post-Internet exhibition and 2014 co-edited Art Post-internet: Information/Data publication; the exhibition and book are also noted when she was named a '40 under 40 Art & Tech Thinker' by Apollo Magazine in 2021. There appear to be more secondary sources available in the Wikpedia Library, and I think the article could be further developed with sources already added. Beccaynr (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There also appear to be about four pages of GBooks results to sort through, where she/her work is cited and/or discussed. Beccaynr (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I saw that. Thank you for your excellent improvements, @Beccaynr. I've added a few items also. I think the nom should be withdrawn. Netherzone (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO, and may also meet WP:AUTHOR based on reviews. I've just started adding more content and a few more citations. I'm surprised it was nominated, Sabih omar, I know you are a newer editor and may not know, but doing a WP:BEFORE search is considered best-practices before making a nomination. Also a quick question, how come you seem to like nominating articles about people named "Karen"? Not that you have done anything against policy, but you nominated six "Karen articles" in one day. Just curious. Netherzone (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also gone through other common first names like Chris, Smith, Michael, Jennifer and Pamella. I have also improved several pages (like Karen Beemon, Pamela Wallace, Smith Bagley etc.). And I am glad this article about Karen Archey is getting improved because of this AfD. So yes, I did categorically look up pages by first name, but tried to improve them (or remove) based on the merit of each page, without any prejudice. Sabih omar 17:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sabih omar, there's nothing wrong with nominating 6 Karens for deletion at once but it looks odd.
    I recommend you not do this just to spare yourself some sort of wild, bad faith accusation coming at you from out of nowhere ("this person is a misogynist!", "this person hates men!", "this person …")
    It certainly raised questions in my mind when I saw all those Karens but I kept quiet. I figured any malicious agenda would become apparent at the AfDs.
    Just to add another layer of complexity and suspicion, in North America, "Karen" has become a code word of sorts; see Karen (slang).
    Again, this is not about you doing anything wrong -- you didn't. This is about other people jumping to conclusions. Eventually it all gets sorted out but you don't deserve the intervening dumpster fire.
    Or, perversely, you could just blame it on your "AI bot" ignoring your instructions. That would keep WP:ANI busy for several days.
    Anyway, thanks for caring about our articles.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi A. B., just as a follow up - I do not think 'wild, bad faith accusations' are the only type of concern that could be raised about a series of AfD noms with the first name "Karen", which as Karen (slang) notes, could be recognized as a derogatory term. I raised this issue with Sabih omar on his talk page, with an underlying assumption that he may not have realized how others might view the pattern; from my view, he responded in an open and collaborative manner, and then another editor also offered their perspective and encouragement to Sabih omar. I further think it is commendable that during discussion here and at his talk page, Sabih omar avoided language that could be interpreted as dismissive or inflammatory, which I think has been helpful for developing a constructive resolution. Beccaynr (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sabih omar I'm the editor who asked, Also a quick question, how come you seem to like nominating articles about people named "Karen"? Not that you have done anything against policy, but you nominated six "Karen articles" in one day. Just curious. Perhaps I should have asked at your user talk page rather than in this AfD. The reason I asked was not because of the Karen (slang) implications that are mentioned above. The reason I asked is it seemed like you were making an arbitrary decision to nominate several articles superfically based on a name - it seemed too coincidental that so many Karen articles were nominated within minutes of one another. I was perplexed by that procedure in relation to something as serious the AfD process, especially since they were made within minutes of one another. I wondered how you could perform an in-depth WP:BEFORE into each of these Karen articles, and it seemed like you simply picked a name out of a hat to nominate for deletions. The AfD process, at least to my mind, is an aspect of the encyclopedia where one needs to take their time, be thoughtful, do research into sourcing on-and-off-wiki and not approach deletion randomly or lightly. The fact that, as others have pointed out, that "Karens" seem to be culturally dismissed in recent years further complicated matters, and after that was pointed out, I also agree with the issues those editors have described. Hope that helps to explain why I asked the question! Netherzone (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I totally understand why it raised questions. But I can re-assert that there was no prejudice. Thank you all for being patient and civil about it. From these discussions, I learned a lot about AfD procedure as well, and won't use this as lightly going forward. Sabih omar 17:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries @Sabih omar! There is also great information here to learn more about how AfD works: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion - it has all the guidelines. Happy editing, and see you around! Netherzone (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - switched to "keep" on everybody's good work. Another "Karen" saved!

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone! Sabih omar 03:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I thought that it must have been worked on while reading it. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is a notable art critic and there are over 3 articles where she is the primary subject. Hexatekin (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Bartleson[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Does not meet WP:GNG Sabih omar 07:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
... and this article could add a lot of reliable sources by the academic papers she authored or co-authored. Cheers, --TheLonelyPather (talk) 07:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Tse[edit]

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

I didn’t find a reliable third-party source. Sources 4-7 are the author’s personal website, sources 2-3 are the website of the university where the author works, and source 1 is Yamaha’s website. The reliability is unknown. 日期20220626 (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. He is a professor at UIowa (see here) but doesn't amount to WP:NACADEMIC. Doesn't have a lot of reliable sources on the subject. Also, the tone of this article clearly violates WP:NOTLINKEDIN, and I am open to TNT.
Speaking of promotion, this article was created by User:Meltse. One could argue the user name has "Tse" and looks related to the subject. Potential undisclosed COI? --TheLonelyPather (talk) 07:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • After I read the substantial evidence provided by Cunard, I am not inclined to !vote delete. However, this article has some room for improvement. Cheers, --TheLonelyPather (talk) 10:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Sources
    1. Grames, Ronald E. (March–April 2011). "Kenneth Tse Discusses Modern Music and the Golden Tone". Fanfare. Vol. 34, no. 4. pp. 193–198. ProQuest 847856348.

      The article notes: "Kenneth Tse (pronounced cheh), professor of saxophone at the University of Iowa, is certainly one of the instrument's outstanding proponents on any saxophone aficionado's short list. He burst onto the scene in 1996 as the winner of the prestigious New York Artists International Award, which resulted in an acclaimed debut recital at Carnegie Hall. The Alex Award from the National Alliance for Excellence led to another Carnegie Hall recital. And these are but two of the multitude of awards that Tse has garnered in less than a decade and a half. Now at 38, he is vice-president of the Comité International de Saxophone, the organizing agency of the triennial World Saxophone Congress, and the premier advocate organization for the saxophone. He is well known as an outstanding teacher of his instrument, attracting some of the most talented students in the world to the University of Iowa saxophone studio, to the many clinics and master classes that he leads, and to the international saxophone symposium that he has established in his native Hong Kong."

    2. Breeding, Lucinda (2005-10-06). "Piano Concert Symphony Dinner Saxophone Concert Memorial to Robert Ottman". Denton Record-Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2023-07-31. Retrieved 2023-07-31.

      The article notes: "Saxophonist Kenneth Tse will perform in concert Tuesday night. Hong Kong-born Tse has ap peared as a soloist with the Des Moines Symphony, Hong Kong Sinfonietta and the Baylor University Wind Ensemble, and has also recorded four solo albums. He is a doctoral student at the Univesity of Illinois, as well as a faculty member. Tse has caught the attention of The New York Times, and his peers have lauded his lyricism with the saxophone."

    3. Holland, Bernard (1996-06-23). "Classical View; Allowed to Wear Its Vulgarity Proudly, an Instrument Thrives". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2023-07-31. Retrieved 2023-07-31.

      The article notes: "Kenneth Tse, a young virtuoso from Hong Kong, took up the cause at Weill Recital Hall. ... Mr. Tse found interesting pieces by Pierre Max Dubois and Heitor Villa-Lobos. ... Indeed, the more skillfully the classical saxophone is played -- and Mr. Tse does very well -- the more irrepressible its "American" habits seem to be. ... One element well known to all of us is the sweet New Year's Eve vibrato as caricatured by Guy Lombardo. Mr. Tse valiantly fought it back in a transcription of a Bach sonata; still, Bach, usually instrument-proof, sounded exceedingly strange. ... Mr. Tse's shiny saxophone, for example, sounded lovely on its own terms; he looked elegant in his tail coat and red bow tie."

    4. "A musical evening with local talents". South China Morning Post. 1994-07-20. Archived from the original on 2023-07-31. Retrieved 2023-07-31.

      The article notes: "Tse began saxophone study at the age of 12 and won the first prize in the saxophone solo of the Hong Kong Schools Music Festival for three consecutive years. As founder of the Hong Kong Saxophone Quartet, he also won the first prize in ensemble performance of the Hong Kong Young Musicians' Award in 1989."

    5. Fey, Shari (2002-10-11). "Standing ovations standard at Lamarissimo!". The Beaumont Enterprise. Archived from the original on 2023-07-31. Retrieved 2023-07-31.

      The article notes: "Kenneth Tse, a saxophone player of international reputation and a professor of saxophone at the University of Iowa, starred as the guest artist and earned a well deserved standing ovation, performing the virtuosic piece ""Fantasia for Alto Saxophone." Tse, who shares the University of Indiana as an alma mater with Weiss, was a true crowd pleaser. Tse's appearance was a bit out of the ordinary for a Lamarissimo! concert, because generally, these concerts feature Lamar personalities only, but as Weiss said, he had no hesitation because an international artist of Tse's reputation is a sure-fire crowd pleaser. Weiss was right. Not only was Tse's performance piece a hit, but when the alto saxophonist played the first few bars of ""Stardust" as the concert encore, the audience went wild with applause and stood for ovation No. 4."

    6. Kerns, William (2005-09-30). "Entertainment Briefs: Tse performs sax recital at Hemmle Hall". Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. Archived from the original on 2023-07-31. Retrieved 2023-07-31.

      The article notes: "Saxophonist Kenneth Tse will perform a recital at 8 p.m. Oct. 13 at the Texas Tech School of Music's Hemmle Recital Hall. ... After his 1996 Carnegie Hall debut, the New York Times called Tse "a young virtuoso." Fanfare magazine wrote, "Hong kong-born Tse is of the caliber of instrumentalists whose very sound is captivating." Tse is professor of saxophone at the University of Iowa and holds degrees from Indiana University and Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts. He currently is completing his doctor of musical arts degree at the University of Illinois."

    7. "New UI faculty member to give debut recital". The Gazette. 2002-10-13. Archived from the original on 2023-07-31. Retrieved 2023-07-31.

      The article notes: "Saxophonist Kenneth Tse, who joined the faculty of the University of Iowa School of Music in August, will perform two works written for him as part of his UI faculty debut recital program, at 8 p.m. Thursday at Clapp Recital Hall. ... The pieces written for Tse are both sonatas for alto saxophone and piano, one each by American composers John Cheetham and David DeBoor Canfield. ... Tse is an international performer and clinician."

    8. Anderson, Maggie (2006-02-15). "Saxophone Alliance conference to be held at U. Iowa". UWIRE. Archived from the original on 2023-07-31. Retrieved 2023-07-31.

      The article notes: "Kenneth Tse's office is a mess of yellow plastic bags, cardboard boxes, stacks of CDs, and music-festival programs. His grand piano has become just another shelf in the room, and only traces of worn wood suggest a desk underneath the pile. ... Tse, the membership director for saxophone alliance for the past five years and an assistant professor in the UI music school, applied to host the conference in 2004, and he has been planning for the event throughout the 10 months since learning the university would house the symposium."

    9. Sullivan, Kenneth (January–February 1999). "Kenneth Tse, saxophone". American Record Guide. Vol. 62, no. 1. pp. 229–230. ProQuest 223389422.

      The article notes: "Kenneth Tse plays the saxophone with seductive tonal beauty. In this recital of international contemporary music based on Tse's 1996 Carnegie Hall debut, ... Even when he plays with the earthy abandon the instrument is renowned for, as in the abrasive Sonata for Alto Saxophone by Czech composer Jindrich Feld, Tse manages a supremely elegant tone. ... The repertory is fresh, the recording vibrant. A seductive collection."

    10. Erdmann, Thomas (July 2007). "Kenneth Tse". Saxophone Journal. Vol. 31, no. 6. pp. 28–33. ISSN 0276-4768. ProQuest 1336762.

      The abstract notes: "In an interview, classical saxophonist and saxophone educator Kenneth Tse discusses various aspects of his career and his art. He describes his early musical background and training, which included eight years of self-taught practice before his entry into the Hong Kong Academy for the Performing Arts; discusses his bachelor's and master's study at Indiana University; comments on his teaching position at the University of Iowa; describes the types of skills he focuses on when doing music clinics; explains what he finds instructive about playing Johann Sebastian Bach's music on the saxophone; offers advice to saxophone students on playing multiple types of saxophones; discusses some of his recordings; explains his practice methods; and explores various other related topics. A selected discography and a list of compositions that have been dedicated to Tse are provided, and an inset details Tse's preferred instruments and accessories."

    11. Wagner, Paul (May 2002). "Recommended Recordings: Kenneth Tse - "In Memory"". Saxophone Journal. Vol. 26, no. 5. p. 42. ISSN 0276-4768. ProQuest 1338983.

      The abstract notes: "A recording of music by J.S. Bach, Eugene Bozza, Samuel Barber, Joseph Canteloube, Alfred Reed, Karel Husa, and Jerome Naulis performed by alto and soprano saxophonist Kenneth Tse is reviewed (no label given)."

    12. Banaszak, Greg (January 2004). "A Lesson with Kenneth Tse". Saxophone Journal. Vol. 28, no. 3. pp. 33–35, 68. ISSN 0276-4768. ProQuest 1338263.

      The abstract notes: "An interview with saxophonist virtuoso and music teacher Kenneth Tse is presented. Tse discusses teaching, with a focus on practice methods, such as what should be practiced, prioritizing, resting, and suggested exercises. He also highlighted building a saxophone repertoire and career."

    13. "Bach and Bassoon / Trombone Classics / Kenneth Tse". The Instrumentalist. Vol. 53, no. 2. September 1998. pp. 8, 98. ProQuest 204878190.

      The abstract notes: ""Bach and Bassoon" by Arthur Weisberg, "Trombone Classics" by John Kitzman and Janice Kay Hodges and "Kenneth Tse" by Kenneth Tse are reviewed."

    14. Less significant coverage:
      1. "UI faculty recital will feature saxophone". The Gazette. 2003-04-13. Archived from the original on 2023-07-31. Retrieved 2023-07-31.

        The article notes: "Kenneth Tse, saxophone professor at the University of Iowa School of Music, will present a free recital with other UI faculty and guest artists, performing a wide spectrum of 20th-century works for saxophone at 8 p.m. Monday in Clapp Recital Hall on the UI campus. ... The program will present the saxophone in a variety of different contexts, from a duet for saxophone and clarinet, written expressly for Tse and his wife, to songs for voice with saxophone and piano, and larger chamber combinations that include the saxophone."

      2. Blair, Brian (2010-09-18). "Top sax player to launch philharmonic season today" (pages 1 and 2). The Republic. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2023-07-31. Retrieved 2023-07-31.

        The article notes: "Kenneth Tse laughed at the question as if it were sheer silliness. But he acknowledged he's heard the query before the one about whether he is the world's top classical sax player. His measured response from a phone conversation at his office at the University of Iowa begged its own question: Even today, as he kicks off the new season for the Columbus Indiana Philharmonic, does such status really matter?"

      3. "Harmonies from saxophone and piano". China Daily. 2005-07-16. Archived from the original on 2023-07-31. Retrieved 2023-07-31.

        The article notes: "Hong Kong-based saxophonist Kenneth Tse will join with pianist Amy Sze, also from Hong Kong, to give performance at a concert in Guangzhou. Tse is currently the professor of saxophone studies at the University of Iowa, also serving as the membership director of the North American Saxophone Alliance."

      4. Lynch, Andrew (1994-07-12). "Prize performers". South China Morning Post. ProQuest 1542925558. Archived from the original on 2023-07-31. Retrieved 2023-07-31.

        The article notes: "On July 23, violinist Kwan Lap-hok, a co-founder of the Sinfonietta, and saxophonist Kenneth Tse, a founder of the Hong Kong Saxophone Quartet, will perform at the City Hall. While Kwan will perform Sarasate's Gypsy Airs and Tse plays Tomasi's Concerto for Saxophone and Orchestra, the concert also includes .."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kenneth Tse (traditional Chinese: 謝德驥; simplified Chinese: 谢德骥) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Akopyan[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Does not meet WP:SPORTBASIC. Sabih omar 04:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. — Karnataka talk 06:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article about footballer who played nine matches in the Russian second division (and some in the Armenian league), but which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. I could only find routine coverage (e.g., match reports [20] and database entries) in Russian-language sources. Jogurney (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Klára Kučerová[edit]

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

The writer's notability has not been proven and the biography does not contain any sources. Most of the article also looks like self-promotion. The term "Klára Kučerová" on Google finds other people with this name than this writer, so the verification effort also failed. FromCzech (talk) 04:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Balauf Delaney[edit]

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

Non-notable sculptor. No significant coverage in reliable, independent source. Sabih omar 04:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: initial search indicates coverage in the local suburban newspapers which are WP:RS. I got better results searching with "Karen Delaney"+sculpture,. I have not had time yet to read them. [21][22]
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Visual arts, and United States of America. — Karnataka talk 07:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The first three citations for "Art Watch" are the exact same article but in 3 different newspapers (Kennett Times, Unionville Times and Chesco Times), which makes me wonder if they are all based on the same press release, or if these 3 papers are subsidiaries of a larger publishing group, or?) Either way, they should not be considered as three separate citations to determine notability. The 4th ref (also Unionville Times) is simply a name check mention of her name. I'll continue to look online (and at the refs A.B. mentions above.) I noticed that she uses two names, Karen Balauf Delaney, and also simply Karen Delaney. Netherzone (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Art Watch article is a promotional piece written by Lele Galer, and her motivation becomes clear when you check the note at the end, which says, "Please come meet Karen and see her latest work at Galer Estate Winery this Thursday on Halloween from 5-9pm! Local Art Watch highights (sic, in all 3 versions) one local artist every week. Lele Galer is an artist who has chaired numerous art shows..." Sabih omar 03:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Created by now-blocked acct and likely fanpage and/or promo. Insufficient sources, low page views, no real assertion of notability etc. 128.252.210.3 (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient coverage to meet WP:NBASIC. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough to support notability. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Greenbank[edit]

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

Fails WP:JOURNALIST, most of the coverage is articles by her as a journalist. There's a bit of coverage of the assault on her but that's almost WP:BLP1E. LibStar (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Vincent Mayell[edit]

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

Mostly un-sourced, could be OR. Sourcing is in non-RS, nor can I find anything. Not meeting notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

—siroχo 04:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Appears to be enough here in terms of in-depth secondary sources needed to pass GNG, although there some work needed to improve it to encyclopedia-level standards. In addition to the significant coverage provided, I found a couple of partial sources which provide additional info about Mayell and his family [[23]][[24]] User:Let'srun 12:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Jubilee Government Degree College[edit]

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

Glaring lack of references suggests low notability and verifiability. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I've found two newspaper articles, one in The Hindu, and there are a variety of primary sources. The article needs to be cut down, but AFD is not cleanup. I don't think there's serious contention that this tertiary educational institution doesn't exist.--Jahaza (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to The Presidents of the United States of America discography. Liz Read! Talk! 01:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rarities (The Presidents of the United States of America album)[edit]

Rarities (The Presidents of the United States of America album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very difficult to find sources here, does not seem to pass WP:MUSIC. I suggest it be deleted. Losipov (talk) 02:34, 31 July 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. ✗plicit 01:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I Didn't Mean to Haunt You[edit]

AfDs for this article:
I Didn't Mean to Haunt You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was previously soft deleted after an AfD I started with just one other participant. Has been recreated with the same sources which were present before, and I'm still not convinced. Check the previous AfD for my full reasoning. Redirect to Quadeca (which it should've been in the first place but that's my mistake for forgetting to write that before). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think that the sources present in the article (i.e. Spill, Paper Magazine, The Fader, and yes, Fantano) do allow the album to fulfill the WP:GNG. I'll admit, it does barely fulfill the requirements, but barely is still enough! It is a little funny, we both have uncovered the same sources and yet have come to different conclusions. I also have found one source here, a university-affiliated paper (which I think could be arguably an RS). I will admit to that being a stretch, but even without that, I believe the album is just notable enough. ULPS (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As this article is not eligible for Soft Deletion, there will have to be much more support for deletion for this discussion to close as a Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG based on sources already present in the existing article. Multiple bylined reviews, lots of additional background across multiple sources. —siroχo 04:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. Varied sources ranging from sources wear their job is just cover any album to articles about should be enough to qualify it for WP:GNG PLUNGERwasHere (talk) 02:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    replied to wrong thing sorry I'm new PLUNGERwasHere (talk) 02:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs a bit of revising as it isn't perfectly up to standards with other album articles, but I believe it meets WP:GNG based on the sources. SpeedrunnerInTraining (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. But content can be Merged to User:BD2412's new article. Liz Read! Talk! 01:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Richmond[edit]

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

Is not notable under WP:GNG as a failed judicial nominee. Let'srun (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and California. Let'srun (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (retracting !vote due to below sourcing which I cannot access) Comment. (Updated !vote: Weak keep based on judicial nom + local coverage below for BIO.) Aside from the fact of the nomination, coverage all seems to be statements from the subject, not secondary/independent sigcov. The only secondary source I found, presuming it even is this subject, is this reference to an interview [25]. Possibly meets BLP1E as exclusionary, but doesn't meet BASIC/GNG either. —siroχo 00:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Siroxo: Go to WP:LIBRARY and after clicking on the Database access link, scroll down to the ProQuest link. APK whisper in my ear 06:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the help. I have successfully parts of the Wikipedia library before but didn't realize you could access ProQuest like that! —siroχo 06:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BIO. Besides the sources mentioning his nomination, I found this article covering Richmond's philanthropy and this article where the local lawyer's association gave him a Lifetime Service Award. APK whisper in my ear 05:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable WP:BLP1E for his failed judicial nomination. SportingFlyer T·C 13:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable BLP. I've done some research and can possibly see why his nomination to district court failed. He's an attorney aged 63-64. This source repeats what others sources say. He has "tried over 15 cases" and "argued 17 appeals" Lower down in the same source it says, "he argued 14 appeals".("Rick Richmond at Republican National Lawyers Association". Republican National Lawyers Association.) That's not much for an attorney of that age. Neither this source, nor others, say his cases were successful. — Maile (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The X KXRX[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010, only a month after its creation (by the since-blocked KXRXtreme (talk · contribs)); tagged as an advertisement since 2012 (not exactly surprising given the creator). Even when we were over-presuming notability for radio stations (relying more on an essay than on GNG), that was never extended to Internet radio stations such as this one. The sources here are a blog, relate to the "real" KXRX it was named for (supporting material that really belongs at KJAQ), the websites for shows carried on the stream, and a YouTube video (that is not about the station). I doubt this meets GNG, or NWEB to the extent it falls under that. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination, any significant coverage is about the namesake actual radio station. AlexandraAVX (talk) 08:08, 31 July 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. to Merge to User:BD2412's new article. Liz Read! Talk! 01:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James P. Arguelles[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:JUDGE. Failed nominees for federal judgeships are not inherently notable. Let'srun (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and California. Let'srun (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. But article will need a rework for BLP issues, as it's not focused on notability right now. I see quite a bit of independent secondary coverage of the subject's judicial opinions and aspects of their background eg [26][27][28][29], and much more. —siroχo 01:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For the same reasons mentioned above.

MIAJudges (talk) 02:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider User:BD2412's proposal. Unfortunately, article has not been created yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Liz: If my proposal is accepted, I'll create the article. It shouldn't take long. BD2412 T 00:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I closed another AFD based on your proposal, (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirk B. Paloutzian) but, to be honest, all of these judicial AFDs are running together in my memory. I had no idea there were so many judges on the project. Liz Read! Talk! 02:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG, and the additional sources presented don't really cover him - they're all about the state's governor. Non-notable judicial nominee. SportingFlyer T·C 12:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not much feedback on BD2412's proposal so I guess this discussion will have to close based on the response of participants alone.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support proposal of BD2412 - that sounds like a good idea to me. I'd be happy to help on that article; if it is created, please let me know on my talk page. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic front in aleppo[edit]

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

This author has created two unsourced POV articles unfit for mainspace (including BLP vios) (see Jabhat Ansar Al Sham. Originally I moved to draft to give the author time to fix the problems but they simply recreated in it mainspace. (See Draft talk:Islamic front in aleppo)  // Timothy :: talk  00:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Is an absolute trainwreck. Even if there was a shred of notability, it would have to be blown up. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 10:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, normally I would recommend draftifying as deletion is not cleanup but since this is just a copy and paste move they can continue working on the draft that already exists. This will give the creator plenty of time to cite their sources and have experienced editors point out whats wrong with it when they submit it. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓  17:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given the same arguments provided above. Creator has made other articles with copy-paste moves and has been informed about the proper way to publish articles. Significa liberdade (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon further review, it looks like this article may have been recreated following a speedy delete, making it eligible for G4. On July 30, 2A00:23EE:15F8:8B21:AC2B:E4FF:FEA3:551E proposed the article for speedy deletion because an article already existed for the topic (see: User talk:Libya345433#Your contributed article, Islamic front in aleppo. Three hours later, Libya re-created the page with the edit summary "Right leave alone 😔". As such, this should be CSD G4. Further, Libya has received a vandalism warning. Significa liberdade (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    i forgot to be honest about the jabhat Ansar Al Sham deletion Libya345433 (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 01:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Buhle[edit]

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

There is literally not a bit or a byte of this article that is actually about Kathleen Buhle as a person, it is all coverage in the context of her ex-husband Hunter Biden, or coverage of a book that again, is known because of her past relations. We jsut went through this with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finnegan Biden. WP:NOTINHERITED. Zaathras (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no, a single political memoir does not meet the "a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" criteria. Also, fix your line-breaking sig, please. Zaathras (talk) 01:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Primarily because I couldn't find a good reason to delete. She isn't hard-disqualified based on WP:AUTHOR - her memoir was "the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"[30][31][32]. The only way she wouldn't pass is if one doesn't consider her memoir "significant", which is subjective. She also isn't hard-disqualified by WP:INVALIDBIO - despite being the spouse of a notable person, there has been at least some significant coverage by RS where she is the primary topic (like these sources from the article [33] [34]) PhotogenicScientist (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even in WP:NOTINHERITED, there's this bit: Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned this deletion discussion at WT:WIR CT55555(talk) 01:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [reply]

  • Comment - We don't even have her birthdate or birthplace. GoodDay (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Article states that she was born in Chicago (which is from her memoir). We can deduce that she was born in 1968 or 1969 as she met Hunter Biden in July 1992 when she was aged 23. Her age and date of meeting are cited in the article about her and the article about her book, but paywalls prevents me from fact checking it and so I've not added it. CT55555(talk) 03:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep – Fully sourced and passes notability standards. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CT55555(talk) 12:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We've had several deletion discussions about the authors of notable memoirs. I find it baffling that we might judge a memoir to be notable, but its author and subject to be non-notable. We should have a page about Buhle or her memoir, as her life story is clearly notable. pburka (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes as a notable WP:AUTHOR of a notable memoir, and is clearly a public figure worthy of an article. Netherzone (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree... nothing wrong with this article 216.16.165.206 (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to If We Break, a notable WP:NBOOK/partial memoir; there are at least three reputable reviews (including a less-than-positive review from The Washington Post. But there does not appear to be any substantial indication that this is a "significant or well-known work", so WP:AUTHOR notability is not supported. This article also appears to be an WP:INVALIDBIO without WP:GNG/WP:BASIC support for notability from e.g. coverage of Hunter Biden, Naomi Biden's wedding, Finnegan and Jill Biden's Coronation attendance, Buhle and Hunter Biden's divorce, and other trivial coverage or coverage dependent on what Buhle says. Beccaynr (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on this, I was just about to change my position to 'Merge' content into If We Break - however, I don't think that's the best answer here. As books go, memoirs aren't typically significant or notable, unless the person who wrote them was already somehow notable. An author of a really good novel can be catapulted to fame if their book is a success; however, authors of a successful memoir are typically people who are already well-known.
    Kathleen was known before the publishing of the book - starting from around 2017. And around that time, there was coverage of her as a person. I think the coverage surrounding her divorce COULD be worked into the article on If We Break - as 'Background' or something - but that it would probably be better just to keep this article, and incorporate it here. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those results include WP:DAILYMAIL and WP:PAGESIX coverage, as well as People magazine churnalism of Page Six coverage about the divorce. The USA Today (churnalism of WP:NYPOST) and AP coverage focused on sensationalized details of the divorce filings about Hunter Biden (churnalism of WP:NYPOST) (as well as later attempts to protect privacy) seem to help show how this article should be deleted according to WP:BLP policy and the lack of support for notability from independent and reliable sources. Beccaynr (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Buhle passes WP:AUTHOR and has received significant coverage, albeit some of it due to her being Biden’s ex-wife, she still received that coverage and wrote a notable memoir. — Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Betsy Bobel[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG as a former beauty pageant contestant. Also appears to be some COI here as well. Let'srun (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of thwarted Islamic terrorist attacks[edit]

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

This is a POV fork of List of terrorist incidents and a mess of WP:OR. Many of the citations used don't refer to the person/s involved in the incidents as being Islamic. Any content that isn't irredeemably biased or original research belongs in List of terrorist incidents along with all other terrorist incidents. This page should be deleted and set to redirect to List of terrorist incidents. AlanStalk 00:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, Terrorism, Religion, Islam, and Lists. AlanStalk 00:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As Dynamo128 typed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks, "If there are problems with original research or accidental inclusions of unrelated events, then that should mean the article ought to be fixed, not that the page as a whole should be deleted."-1Firang (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC) Blocked editor. AlanStalk 06:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your talk page shows that you've recently had a topic ban for India and Pakistan related topics. Additionally that you've been in disputes with other editors regarding Rape in Afghanistan, Stoning in Islam, Rape in Islamic law and History of slavery in the Muslim world. AlanStalk 02:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: since I was quoted, I would like to clarify that I was not party to any discussions on talk pages relating to these pages, I left a comment at a point when I thought the removal was just the initiative of a single user. --Dynamo128 (talk) 06:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So?-1Firang (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC) Blocked editor. AlanStalk 06:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering the advice that's been provided to you from administrators I find this odd. AlanStalk 05:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If 1Firang is WP:AGF, then he is allowed to comment on a deletion article. Obviously, admins will hold caution, but he has given good rationale for his !vote regardless of his past (plus it'll help show he's improving as an editor in other areas). Conyo14 (talk) 05:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dynamo128, I wouldn't worry about it. A review of @1Firang contributions indicates that they had a history of copy and pasting content from one article to another without checking the background or if it was relevant to where they were pasting it to. AlanStalk 07:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't really see a fork, but I don't appreciate the narrow scope to Islam. I'd be fine with having an article for List of thwarted terrorist attacks. That would be a notable topic not significantly covered by the main list and it avoids placing blame on a group of people. Conyo14 (talk) 05:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Note that List of right-wing terrorist attacks also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.

Information icon Note that List of left-wing terrorist attacks also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.

Information icon Note that List of Islamist terrorist attacks also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.

  • Delete: I'm noticing a severe lack of notability in the majority of the entries here, making the list rather pointless. The dead giveaway is the lack of linked articles for most, but beyond that, the very nature of the topic, in many cases simply planned or plotted incidents, or just police tip-offs of 'imminent threats', are not generally, in of themselves, notable anythings. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I concur with Conyo14 that List of thwarted terrorist attacks is needed. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 07:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't List of terrorist incidents sufficiently cover thwarted terrorist attacks? AlanStalk 07:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thwarted attacks seems like an acceptable fork (as long as each event is cited). Conyo14 (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It may be worth noting that a sub-list exists at Islamic terrorism in Europe#Terrorist plots. TompaDompa (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral The name is a problem. It should be Islamic extremist instead of Islamic. But this information is found elsewhere. Lists of terrorists attacks should list the ones that were thwarted. The second thing listed is a successful, not thwarted, plane hijacking, where they then thwarted their plane to crash it into buildings by fighting with the hijackers and the plane itself just crashed and they all died. Dream Focus 09:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (Comment carried over from WP:NPOVN): I don't agree with using the term "Islamic terrorism" or "Islamist terrorism" in wikivoice, even if there are sources that are normally considered to be reliable that use the term. Numerous religions have had extremists who commit atrocities and terrorist attacks motivated or partly motivated by religious belief. Many such acts in Africa, Latin America and elsewhere in the period of colonialism were justified as a means to spread Christianity. But we don't use the term "Christian terrorism". Similarly, Biblical justification has been used by Israelis when committing horrific acts against Palestinians in order to establish and maintain the occupation. But we don't use the term "Jewish terrorism". AFAIK "Islamic/ist terrorism" is the only term in frequent use that implies a direct connection between a major religion and terrorism, and in that way slanders the vast majority of adherents of Islam, who abhor terrorism. Wikipedia should avoid the term, especially in view of the dangerous growth of Islamophobia in the US and Europe. NightHeron (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Many such acts in Africa, Latin America and elsewhere in the period of colonialism were justified as a means to spread Christianity. But we don't use the term "Christian terrorism". Similarly, Biblical justification has been used by Israelis when committing horrific acts against Palestinians in order to establish and maintain the occupation. But we don't use the term "Jewish terrorism". We do; see Christian terrorism and Jewish religious terrorism (the latter uses "religious" because Jewish is also an ethnic group; this concern doesn't apply to Christian or Islamic). BilledMammal (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article Christian terrorism has a section on terminology that discusses why the term "Christian terrorism" is disputed and "problematic". AFAIK that term is not in wide use. Neither is "Jewish religious terrorism". I don't think it's appropriate for any of these political-spin terms that attempt to link a religion with terrorism to be used in wikivoice. In some cases a move to a different title or a merging might be best -- for example, merging Jewish religious terrorism into Zionist political violence. NightHeron (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per previous comments. — Sadko (words are wind) 12:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge to List of Islamic terrorist attacks, per my comment at the "left-wing terrorism" AfD — this is more clearly-defined and less-obvious POV or OR. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 16:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_July_31&oldid=1169258191"