Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 13 June 15 >

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 23:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nduka Anyanwu[edit]

Nduka Anyanwu (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:ONEEVENT (overriding claims of the coverage being WP:SIGCOV), as well as WP:SPORTCRIT, being a low-level player. A mention at List of association football players who died during their careers should suffice. Geschichte (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments He played for Dynamo Dresden, although it's ups and downs it is still a fair size club. I wouldn't call this a one event player. Have you done a solid WP:BEFORE?? I didn't see if there was a German wiki article for the player. But there is enough out there to improve the article. Govvy (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • But there is enough out there to improve the article Where? The only articles I could find were about the player's death. Robby.is.on (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) DonaldD23 talk to me 20:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shaker Run[edit]

Shaker Run (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:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable or reliable enough to pass WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 23:34, 14 June 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 01:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abrar University[edit]

Abrar University (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 university, sources cited don't come even close to meeting WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT, and a search finds nothing better. Previously draftified but immediately moved back to the main space by the author, so next stop AfD. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Somalia. DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it difficult to understand the concept of a "non-notable university" (apart from a diploma mill, which this is not). I note that there is a university of the same name in Tehran. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:NSCHOOL, "All universities, colleges and schools [...] must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both.". Those guidelines (WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT) require significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. This article cites no such sources, hence it fails GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete doesn't demonstrate a GNG pass, and didn't find any evidence that was the case on a cursory search of online research databases. They might exist in another language, but I don't think there's smoke in English options. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeletePer nominator and David Fuchs. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 22:57, 17 June 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 23:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Amo Tobbin[edit]

Samuel Amo Tobbin (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 business person. No RS and flowery language used, all red flags for non-notability. "Who's Who in Ghana" in particular appears non-useable as a source. Oaktree b (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete While I'm less familiar with the sources, I don't think any meet the requirements for GNG. They seem like standard English-style puff profiles and vanity/promo press. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nominator and David Fuchs. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Quality of the sources seems low and more promotional than anything, I don't see evidence of passing WP:GNG. IceBergYYC (talk • contribs) 09:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted‎ by Bbb23 per criterion G11. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora Dream[edit]

Aurora Dream (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)

Aurora Dream

This article is about a musical project that does not satisfy any of the musical notability criteria, and has been written by its principal musician, so that there is a conflict of interest. This article has been draftified once, by User:Exemplo347, and then declined by User:AngusWOOF, but was then also copied back into article space by the originator. The first paragraph of the History section would need to be deleted as peacockery if this article otherwise should be kept, but it doesn't address any of the musical notability criteria, and doesn't address general notability. The draft can be left in draft space to be worked on by any neutral editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:13, 14 June 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 23:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Involution (film)[edit]

Involution (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)

Article fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. I did a WP:BEFORE and found a link from Bloody Disgusting. Needs more coverage in order to pass NFO, NFSOURCES and WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom
FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: doesn't meet the requirements of SIGCOV 1keyhole (talk) 05:25, 21 June 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 23:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sath (Student Organisation)[edit]

Sath (Student Organisation) (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 student organization. Contested draftification, so we're here. Insufficient sourcing, likely TOOSOON, but creator objects to draftspace. They're active in multiple colleges, so no obvious merger target. Star Mississippi 23:11, 14 June 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 23:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Kansara[edit]

Ashish Kansara (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)

Contested draftification, so we're here. While language is an issue, sourcing is mostly inappropriate for a BLP and no assertion he meets N:ARTIST. Appears to be a commercial artist, vs. one who would be in a museum or otherwise meet Notability criteria. Star Mississippi 23:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • For what it's worth, it's not the first time the article was pushed into mainspace. In any case, the sources seem mostly promotional in nature, so I would say delete. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They've been promoting the artist for a month now. I will block for UPE if they don't declare. Star Mississippi 01:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you are right, I am promoting the artist because, Rogan painting artist is now rare. now only two artists, that's why I care so much. this is not for promotional purposes. Thanks Usblogger27 (talk) 02:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Please stop, or you will be blocked. Star Mississippi 12:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Usblogger27's recent claim, it seems the issue is leaning towards WP:ADVOCACY. But they are unable to accept that Wikipedia is not for it per WP:NOTADVOCACY. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A strange article I have seen. I have checked about the article person in all Google search (found nothing) and the references also. Even those YouTube videos too don't cite the article person instead the art. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move back to draft and move-lock the page so as to require administrative review before this can be restored to mainspace again. BD2412 T 17:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find any indication this person passes WP:NARTIST. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article bears a similarity to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashish shantilal kansara. Very questionable pictures uploaded to the Commons. The article is about a working craftsman, but does not rise to the level of notable. Quite a bit of the article is about Rogan painting rather than the artisan. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that was helpful. I just pinged you in the SPI Star Mississippi 02:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move back to draft, agree with BD2412, I could see this becoming an article, but it's certainly not ready for mainspace in its current form. Wikipedialuva (talk) 06:00, 17 June 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Conference on Clifford Algebras[edit]

International Conference on Clifford Algebras (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)

International Conference on Clifford Algebras

This article is about a triennial academic conference, but the article provides no indication of general notability or event notability, because it says nothing about what third parties have written about the conference or why the conference is notable, such as what mathematical accomplishments have been announced at the conference, or what mathematical collaborations have resulted from the conference. The only reference appears to be a biography of William Kingdon Clifford, the developer of Clifford algebras. The book is probably evidence of the notability of its subject, William Kingdon Clifford, and of his main work, Clifford algebras, and the articles about them are not being questioned. This conference may be run-of-the-mill, in that there are many annual or triennial academic conferences, some of which are notable, and this article does not say why this one is.

There is also a draft, which appears to be identical to this article. This article cannot be moved unilaterally to draft space because there is already a draft. So this article should be deleted while the draft is retained for possible expansion as to why this conference is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Mathematics, and United Kingdom. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per WP:GNG. Really finding it difficult it prove any notability for this at all. Ajf773 (talk) 10:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not often that an academic conference, or even a series of academic conferences, is worth having an article about. What is there to say, really? People meet, drink coffee, sit in bad chairs, tolerate the talks for the sake of the conversations, hit the pub, and hop on a plane to burn carbon on the way home. Per Earwig, the opening lines of this article are copyvio anyway. XOR'easter (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I wouldn't be comfortable voting to delete this article without access to a copy of the book, which includes a chapter called "The Clifford Heritage". Unfortunately, I wasn't able to access the book online. Suriname0 (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. Maliner (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rokšped[edit]

Rokšped (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:ORGCRIT. No SIGCOV whatsoever. 〜 Festucalex • talk 21:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Devon Roberts[edit]

Devon Roberts (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)

Three international caps for Grenada. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:27, 14 June 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 Nottingham Cricket Club players. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hiram Slack (cricketer, born 1808)[edit]

Hiram Slack (cricketer, born 1808) (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:SPORTCRIT. 〜 Festucalex • talk 21:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kwesi Paul[edit]

Kwesi Paul (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)

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:11, 14 June 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ulrike Fitzer[edit]

Ulrike Fitzer (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:BASIC. No SIGCOV, only a few passing mentions, she once was in a non-notable documentary film. 〜 Festucalex • talk 20:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kimo Sampson[edit]

Kimo Sampson (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)

Lots of passing mentions, but I was unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources to satisfy WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:24, 14 June 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skyline Restaurant[edit]

Skyline Restaurant (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:NOTTRAVELGUIDE, just a few local WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS is not enough to establish notability. --woodensuperman 13:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. --woodensuperman 13:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with the nominator. Although the reviews used as sources appear to be independent and reliable per WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS, they vary in depth and significance and are all local publications. The article itself just says its a restaurant that has received "generally" positive reviews. None of this suggests anything other than WP:MILL, which does not establish a level of notability that would justify a standalone article. Dfadden (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Oregonian is not merely local media; it is the second largest newspaper in the Pacific Northwest by circulation, and the de facto newspaper of record for the state of Oregon. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It hardly establishes notability in this case though does it? The one reference in this article from this newspaper is an article listing some of the best places to get a milkshake in the state!!! Not exactly the in depth coverage that WP:SIRS calls for is it? --woodensuperman 14:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you try searching for other Oregonian coverage before nominating? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm a neutral party looking at this article in isolation and I dont live in the USA (im a burger fan which led me here). At the time of my vote, there was no under construction tag. I looked at the article's edit history and saw little major expansion work had been done since October 2021 before the AfD nomination. Granted the Oregonian may have broad circulation, but the articles don't really cover why this place is significant other than having decent milkshakes. I did do a cursory google search before voting and I'm not convinced by the expanded article (break-ins and power outages can affect any business!) that it is not a "run of the mill" diner yet. My vote remains delete. But I agree with other comments that perhaps this should be developed in a draft space to avoid premature AfDs? Dfadden (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have added an "under construction" tag and will be expanding this article. This is a continuation of a mass nomination of Portland restaurant entries, and I doubt a proper source assessment has been completed before jumping to AfD. Nominator may disagree and that's fine, my point is this article is a work in progress and I hope others will complete a thorough review of sourcing before voting on a stub. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you considered maybe creating these in draft space first then waiting for others' opinions on whether they meet notability, rather than creating as a stub in mainspace? Whilst I commend the quality and commitment in your work, it seems like you have created a great number of articles that are just WP:Run-of-the-mill. Not every restaurant in Portland is notable. --woodensuperman 15:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No one thinks every restaurant in Portland is notable. This has been discussed so much lately because of mass nominating of Portland restaurant articles. I'm not interested in commenting further. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agreeing with the nominator. I cannot find anything that deems this restaurant notable, even if the article was well-developed. The Oregonian's list does not include WP:SIGCOV of the restaurant, too. Tirishan (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per GNG (disclaimer: page creator). This is a continuation of Portland restaurant entries mass-nominated for deletion unnecessarily. Like prior attempts to gut coverage of the city's restaurant industry, I have no choice but to assume nominator did not complete a thorough source assessment before jumping to AfD because I very easily found many reliable local, regional, and national publications providing in-depth coverage of the business, which is many decades old. I've asked the nominator to please post concerns on talk pages before mass-nominating and jumping to AfD. Based on sufficient coverage, this entry should be kept and expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Oregon. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Nom is a stretch of the interpretation of WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE, as is just a few local [reviews]. I don't disagree that we don't want to get too far afield, but this doesn't meet the threshold for deletion; redirection, maybe, but not deletion. Does the article need work? Sure. But that's a reason to work on the article's shortcomings, not a reason to delete. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What, exactly, is actually notable about this diner? What makes it stand out? What makes it significant? There is nothing about this diner that is not WP:Run-of-the-mill. Take a look at some of the inane padding added to this article: Skyline has a sign advertising the "Best Burger in Portland"; Classic rock is played outside, and orders are announced over a speaker. Honestly! --woodensuperman 13:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The burden of proof is not on me to prove to you that it should be kept. Quite the opposite - it's on you as the nominator to show that it doesn't meet GNG and your nomination simply does not meet the threshold. It's based on opinion. And WP:Run-of-the-mill is an opinion essay - it is not an actual policy or guideline - it supports nothing in a deletion discussion. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment In fairness, the nominator has already sighted WP:SIGCOV, and pointed out that much of the expansion could be considered puffery. Notability requires two conditions to be met - 1. Meeting GNG guidelines and 2. Not excluded under WP:NOT. It's also worth reminding some people who have commented on this AfD that Wikipedia is not a Battleground and votes should be backed by arguments around policy. WP:WHATISTOBEDONE suggests editors who have doubts about whether an article meets notability criteria may consider an AfD. Evidence wins arguments, rather than accusations of grudges or personal bias.
As to notability criteria, I tend to agree that this fails WP:NOT which is not an exhaustive list, but should be taken in the spirit of the first of the 5 pillars. Much of the content here is extended quotes taken from the many reviews used as sources and even then, is trivial and doesn't show notability - eg "Classic rock is played outside, and orders are announced over a speaker. According to Martin Cizmar of Willamette Week, the restaurant's soundtrack has "lots of Beach Boys and the pre-Tiffany version of 'I Think We're Alone Now'." Also, that the business has a sign advertising the best burgers and has been impacted by a power outage that affected the whole city. How is this encyclopedic content? Other inclusions like "The restaurant is open seven days a week, except for Thanksgiving and Christmas" could be excluded per WP:NOTGUIDE and the whole article arguably borders on WP:PROMO by virtue of the content mostly being direct quotes from reviews that don't use a neutral POV.
I think the article was created in good faith as the the creator believes the diner has cultural value. As an argument for notability, this position may be strengthened if there are some reliable sources or discussion relating to its heritage, impact or appearances in popular culture etc. For example, when i read The Roxy (Portland, Oregon), it's clear that it had some broader impact on the LGBT culture in Portland. This article on the other hand is just a collection of commentary on the food and atmosphere. Dfadden (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will beg your pardon in advance if this comes across as harsh, but if your comment (...reminding some people who have commented on this AfD that Wikipedia is not a Battleground and votes should be backed by arguments around policy) was in any way directed at me, then you'd better be prepared to back up your claims of WP:BATTLEGROUND. Such a comment could be easily construed to be confrontational itself. (If it's directed at others or in general, then your comment belongs in the general discussion, and not threaded in this one.) But more importantly, consensus is not a vote. Not only is consensus not a voting process, there is no requirement that consensus be the majority opinion. If you don't understand that, then please familiarize yourself with WP:CON before commenting further. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The comment regarding WP:BATTLEGROUND was not directed at you personally, and I take on board your feedback about not including in the threaded comment, so I apolgise if it came across as such and will strike it from this section. As to WP:CON, consensus is not a vote and does does not require unanimity, However, "Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." I have raised legitimate concerns (IMHO) about issues surrounding particular policies and guidelines as did the nominator. I feel that some of the votes in favour of keeping the article have not considered these points. I'm happy to let the admins decide if there is consensus here and will not oppose their decision. I just want to ensure I have clearly stated my case and advocated my position as part of the process. Dfadden (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is just sad some people spend all their time nominating and attacking quality articles by Another Believer (instead of trying to improve the wiki in their own field of knowledge). Coldbolt (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not aware of the previous history here, but it seems that maybe there are quite a few people who have independently seen a problem with the great number of trivial articles like these started by this editor. --woodensuperman 13:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obvious keep, per sourced material. As for the Portland travel guide accusation, since all of these articles are adequate, the actual sentiment could be that Portland is lucky that Another Believer focuses on it (just one of many notable topics that AB brings to Wikipedia). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be sourced material, but the material does not establish notability. None of it is significant. Or even interesting except to maybe people who might want to dine there. --woodensuperman 13:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Differ, I beg to" to quote Mr. Yoda (and to abide by James Beard). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. Sounds like a personal opinion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keeps, but they seem shy about presenting the core refs that make it a keep... try a re-list.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aszx5000 (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article which was nominated for deletion was very different than the current article, but even with the WP:HEY and all the new citations, I'm not sure how WP:NORG is met. It's just a local restaurant that's only received routine local mentions. Before someone responds, the only articles currently in the citation that covers only the restaurant are a local food review (Portland Mercury) and some local news articles about a break-in. The remaining articles are more local food reviews with other restaurants lumped in, general restaurant news, listicles, directories of restaurants, et cetera... If these count for notability, then every restaurant in every city with a food editor is notable. I also think WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE actually still applies here the way the article's been written. SportingFlyer T·C 22:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article covers a culturally significant restaurant in a highly populated downtown area. It is well written, well sourced, and highly polished. It isn't competing for an article title or resulting in the creation of a disambiguation page. I see absolutely no reason to even consider deleting this article, it certainly isn't hurting anything. DeVosMax [ contribs • talk • created media ] 11:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We need to have the three references that you believe give it WP:GNG - at the moment, despite the length of this AfD, we have not been presented with these references? Remember, AfD is not a vote. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:ATA. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The way I see it, this is an extremely obvious case where WP:NORULES should be implemented. This article is extremely high quality, well written, well sourced, and covers a topic of clear local cultural significance. This doesn't fall under WP:MILL because it's engrained into the history of an extremely notable urban area. I don't understand why you're so hellbent on deleting it. Remember, the goal of this process is to allow this encyclopedia to include relevant information and sift out things that are irrelevant. Deleting a GA-quality article covering a significant restaurant in a major metro area because the restaurant hasn't been covered by national news isn't bringing us any closer to achieving that. DeVosMax [ contribs • talk • created media ] 00:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The argument you make can be used by any fan to create any page they want about their favorite topic. That is why on Wikipedia we need some level of proof of notability for an article. I have not !voted in this AfD, but am trying to get the "keeps" to show the refs that meet this criteria. Articles that can't do this, even if they survive an AfD, keep coming back. Aszx5000 (talk) 07:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's astounding that some people think articles should go just based on the types of sources restaurants get. This article is neutral, factual, and incredibly long, with great images, good prose, and citation work. This should be a GA or FA, not up for deletion. ɱ (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet those of us wanting to delete it are still waiting on the WP:THREE sources which actually show that this restaurant is notable. As I've written above, if this restaurant is notable, based on the sourcing currently in the article, every restaurant in every city with a food newspaper beat will be notable. SportingFlyer T·C 11:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    THREE is just some dude's essay. This passes OUR NOTABILITY GUIDELINE by a longshot. Yes, if newspapers substantially cover a food business, we should too. Duh. ɱ (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a possible disconnect with NAUTHOR or NALBUM, where book or album reviews by industry critics can give notability (and I sometimes see in AfD borderline cases still sailing through with thin reviews in very niche RS). I guess if we had WP:NRESTAURANT, there might be a similar criteria that if it was reviewed by a critic, then that would go to notability? Maybe that is the disconnect that being felt here? My 2cents. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason there's delete !votes here is because this article clearly fails WP:NCORP (and WP:GNG, and the guidance at WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS.) Not a single keep !voter has shown any sources that either pass NCORP or RESTAURANTREVIEWS. All I'm asking is to see WP:THREE of those - if they existed, this wouldn't be a contentious AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 14:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SportingFlyer: again that's an essay, and I see that this does pass GNG and RESTAURANTREVIEWS. Which sources do you think don't qualify there? And NCORP (which the review section is part of) should only be one consideration for a foodservice operation. Food and drink culture is a culture, with history, traditions, architecture, design, technique, neighborhood or city associations, etc. It's not just some random office business, there are many other cultural factors to apply here. ɱ (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem I have is that the cultural importance isnt clearly conveyed through the article. Sure, there are a few detailed and subjective reviews, but nothing that distinguishes this diner as being notable over any other. The claim of best burger is disputed. There is no evidence that the building itself is protecred by a heritage listing or something that would convey its architectural significance. Perhaps if this were a culture wiki dedicated to restaurants and food, this could be a featured article, but wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and a collection of reviews, changes in ownership, historic menu items, trading hours and being closed once due to a statewide power outage are not encyclopedic content.
    I ask you to have a look at The Roxy (Portland, Oregon). I believe this also contains a lot of similarly unencyclopedic content, but it is clear that it had cultural significance beyond just its menu and existence. Because of that, I'd say it's issues are worth fixing. I just don't see that with this Skyline and nobody has been able point out particular sources that provide in depth coverage of its cultural impact. Dfadden (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't cherry-pick your notability standards. Restaurants are restaurants are restaurants, and the guidelines need to apply to them equally. We can't just only blindly rely on corporation standards for cultural cornerstones including restaurants, cafes, and cocktail bars. ɱ (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not about cherry picking notability standards at all. Its about clearly articulating what makes this restaurant notable in the first place. WP:EXISTS (an essay) implies that the existence of a person or thing does not prove its notability. There doesnt appear to be any defined standard or guideline on what makes a restaurant notable, but if a member of WP:Food and Drink can point one out, I'd be happy to consider it. To say "a restaurant is a restaurant" would mean either all restaurants are notable or no restaurants are notable and I certainly don't think either interpretation is true. Dfadden (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't quite what I was saying, any part of this reply here. ɱ (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologise if i have misunderstood you. If you are saying is that there is a cultural dimension to restaurants that is ignored by the blanket argument of WP:NCORP, I actually agree with you! However, as user:Aszx5000 points out, there is no tangible guideline on notability for restaurants like there are for other cultural works such as WP:NALBUM. I think identifying WP:THREE sources that most clearly demonstrate notability derived from this cultural value would go a long way towards achieving consensus. Dfadden (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you know why editors are so averse to this 'three' bs? I'd be willing to stake having a closer find nobody willing to list the three best sources over the alternative. If I list three sources, especially in most of Another Believer's AfDs, the hounds then come out to rip those to shreds. Any source can be pulled apart for something or another. Even the best newspapers are constantly targeted as 'biased'. I'm not setting the keep vote up for failure. All of the sources contribute to notability together. ɱ (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In many of these instances, the delete voters set up their own 'source reviews' which are heavily biased themselves, and rife with errors and misleading or false statements. I don't trust source analysis in an AfD anymore. People can individually vote after taking their own look. ɱ (talk) 05:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have yet to find a single GNG-qualifying source out of the 43 sources currently in the article. Every source is flawed in some way. [10] is the closest I've found so far but again it's just a local restaurant review, it's not enough on its own. And of course WP:THREE is an essay, but given the lack of notability for the sources currently in the article, I'm hoping someone who wants to keep this can pick the best three sources they think pass GNG found so we can discuss them. It should be really easy if it's notable! SportingFlyer T·C 22:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "it's not enough on its own"... it's not on it's own. There's many other sources here. "Every source is flawed in some way" is silly, you could apply that to most things we call RSs here. Even the most authoritative sources like the New York Times are called biased by someone or another, and by some 'media bias' rater sites. It all boils down to - if so many news sources are talking about this Skyline Restaurant, shouldn't we? ɱ (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Went through source nos 1 to 11 and the only one with indepth coverage is, as you say, no.3 Portland Monthly. The rest are promotional. No.10 is mainly an interview with the owner and some editorial. The aim of the listicles is to promote eateries in Portland in general and drum up trade for the businesses featured in particular. Putting in so many references indicates to me a struggle to achieve notability. To be honest, I got bored seeing pictures of burgers after checking out the first 11 references. If you've gone through all 43, I applaud your dedication! Rupples (talk) 23:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is pure speculation, and unfounded. Most news sites create content that readers will want to read. I don't believe or see any evidence of a desire to promote in these list articles. Many/most of these are reliable publications with reliable journalists. And I do think adding extra weaker references does look bad, but your speculation as to the motives is unfounded and I believe incorrect. ɱ (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess we just look at things through different lenses. Anyhow, wouldn't expect you to agree with me since you use similar sources in some of the articles you've created. I've not come across a single one of your articles at AfD. Rupples (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So we may always disagree. I don't rely on them or let it water down the refs section, which it seems people have an issue with, despite it not being a policy- or guideline-based complaint. ɱ (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. Significant coverage in sources is always open to interpretation. Well, I'm off to read another of your articles. Appreciate you putting them up on your user page - the one's I've read are great. Rupples (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My lists aren't very Current but that will be fixed... ɱ (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have to agree with the above keeps - good article including with critical reception from several sources. ResonantDistortion 09:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to List of Kanon characters. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ayu Tsukimiya[edit]

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

Article has massive unsourced sections, and additionally had several references cited as saying things they didn't or for the character herself when they were talking about the group. With those sources removed, there's next to nothing actually here. Trying to find sources through Scholar or even Web Archive found next to nothing, and while book sources do exist they're discussing her role in the title, not offering any analysis on the character that can be cited. Even the GAR it went through years ago argued it should've been merged. Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge anything sourced/missing to Kanon (or the character list if exists) but definitely at least redirect since she’s easily the most famous character (uguu, anyone?) Dronebogus (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 04:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge an evaluation of the sourcing in the article doesn't indicate the character passes GNG independent from Kanon, and it leans pretty heavy on crufty trivia that can easily be condensed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Article seems to rest its laurels on references, sometimes improperly referenced (such a citing an episode of Lucky Star without referencing someone saying that it was a reference to Kanon). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. I checked the reception section and it is pretty thinly stretched from passing mentions, and likewise, references cited are generally not meeting WP:SIGCOV or are not reliable. WP:FANCRUFT, I fear. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This remains a "good article" on the Chinese Wiki [11]. Have you tried checking foreign sources? I did a quick look (in Japanese) and came across: (Natalie 1), (Natalie 2), J-Cast, Character poll, Voice Actress Interview. English books: (talks about Ayu). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you look at the sources you're recommending? Almost none of them are offering reception, with the book only offering a tiny amount at all. The voice actress interview doesn't count towards character reception. And what another part of wikipdia does in terms of its articles is very different from this end of Wikipedia. Many character articles still exist on the Japanese end and they're a complete mess.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kung Fu Man: I said I did a quick look which is better than not looking at all. A voice actress interview definitely helps on a character article as its out of universe perspective. I also notice that her character design inspired Fred Gallagher to pen a cartoon. The "Creation and conception" needs third party sourcing which I feel can be found via foreign sources, which falls under WP:BEFORE. This article could benefit from cleanup and a re-evaluation of the sources present. That being said... the bar is being set high here, are we going to discount the influence on a notable cartoonist, an interview of the voice actress given by a WP:RS, and sources giving character reviews? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry but being referenced in a webcomic, even by a notable cartoonist, doesn't really account for much. Nothing is being said their about their thoughts on the character in any significance just a nod towards them, which could also translate towards the related media and not the character per se. And the voice actress interview doesn't seem to go in depth on the character either, just mentioning that it was done. The bar is no higher than any other article, the sourcing trying to prove notability is just not cutting the mustard.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay I concede... I tried looking into foreign sourcing and didn't find anything. I wanted to at least give it one last effort before exhausting the search. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nomination, I tried in vain with nothing to be found. Even the GA nomination had editor concerns on the character's notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:42, 21 June 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.

Per WP:Snow, the result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Meanderingbartender (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ulysse Pastre[edit]

Ulysse Pastre (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 guy doesnt seem like he should have a page Iljhgtn (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and France. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Elected member of the French Chamber of Deputies is a clear WP:NPOL pass. Did the nominator even read the article? Curbon7 (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Curbon7. Passes NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Curbon7. 〜 Festucalex • talk 20:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Curbon7. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Zut alors, the French wiki article uses two biographical encyclopedias of French parliamentarians, couldn't ask for better sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sure, the article could use some expansion, but he held an inherently notable role that passes WP:NPOL and the French article features more content and sourcing that can be used to improve it with. Bearcat (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we snow close this please? No need to take any more time over it. Mccapra (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: As Curbon7 mentioned, meets WP:NPOL as a member of the national legislative body of France (Chamber of Deputies). Hey man im josh (talk) 13:37, 15 June 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 Fallout (video game) or a characters list, such as may develop. Star Mississippi 20:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Master (Fallout)[edit]

The Master (Fallout) (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)

Almost the entire reception are entirely made of passing mentions and some listicles that amount to WP:REFBOMB. Cannot find a single WP:SIGCOV somehow on google search. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 19:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Fallout (video game). Does not seem individually notable - lacks SIGCOV. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: putting aside the fact that this is a good article, The Master is clearly notable as one of the best villainous characters in video game history, which is well-referenced statement, as you can see in the reception section. I completely fail to see how the article lacks SIGCOV. 〜 Festucalex • talk 21:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Its from ranking sources, not directly about the character. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 22:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as a WP:GOODARTICLE. I wouldn't say that it's impossible to delete a good article, but it's a high bar, considering that it's very difficult to produce a meaningful good article without significant coverage in reliable sources. There are older good articles from over a decade ago that could get away with that, but not more recently. "One of the best villainous characters in video game history" is pretty notable, at least in the qualitative sense. The second half of the reception is a little indirect. But the first paragraph demonstrates significant coverage about the character, and it could be easily expanded if people felt this needed more detail. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you found more sources about Master, could you send it here so I could attempt to expand it (I have guilt for opening this afd now). GlatorNator (ᴛ) 23:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I think you have a point about the second paragraph. But the first paragraph is built on significant coverage that is much more than a passing mention. Even if we are being critical of listicles that are too narrow or short, the one page about The Master from GameSpot is clearly significant. GameSpot declares this to be one of the best game villains, and would qualify as WP:SIGCOV in both a qualitative and quantitative sense. I've seen articles summarize this kind of coverage with 2 or 3 sentences, where this article sparingly summarizes it with one. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’d also like to see more sources if they exist. The Master seems like an interesting character who has some meaningful individual reception. Dronebogus (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a GA, the article reads well enough. The assertion that just because there aren't multiple RS'es it cannot be notable is a Inverse (logic) argument and doesn't necessarily follow from our notability rules. If anything, this article demonstrates that we've been looking at notability all wrong: If notability is about the ability to write an encyclopedic article, then the fact that this is a decent encyclopedia article is evidence that we've been construing notability too narrowly. That is, two listicles and a couple of quotes don't demonstrate notability.... but maybe an arbitrarily large number of snippets, appropriate arranged... do. Jclemens (talk) 08:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin All "keep" opinions so far are some variation on WP:ILIKEIT and WP:EFFORT - nobody has put forth the supposed sources that grant this article notability. I would legitimately like to see the sources people are citing. If someone doesn't demonstrate hard evidence, that should be considered when judging the AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I find your assertion here somewhat problematic. You're only writing it because the tally of positions seem to be going in the opposite direction at the time. The closing admin can come to their own conclusion on whether there is a viable consensus that complies with Wikipedia guidelines, every participant has said their piece, so I don't think it's appropriate for you to instruct the closing admin whose position to discard or take into consideration. Haleth (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Fallout. This one was painful, and I expanded out the references here to make them stronger. But the problem is there isn't as much examination as one would think, and it doesn't help that all this feels like it could work better as reception alongside the game, especially given how small the rest of the material is, without feeling like overdue weight. I looked through everything I could, I mean literally *everything*...and there isn't more there. I saw the argument was that notability may be too narrow, but I'm going to argue the problem is more the subject here is too narrow to really make it properly work. The thoughts in the reception keep repeating themselves: the master is sympathetic, one of the greatest villains in gaming, pure body horror, and it was novel you could convince him to stop. I really wish there was more thorough examination of him.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. In this case, I think the optimal solution would be the creation of List of Fallout characters or List of Fallout factions and to merge the most relevant information there. I think I'd lean toward keep over delete, but I agree with Zxcvbnm's analysis that the keep !voters to this point have made arguments that aren't relevant to a notability discussion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found three sources that appears to some substantial discussion about the Master:
Fallout: A Tale of Mutation has devoted anywhere between 15 to 20 pages discussing the Master's in-game role.
Pessimism: Critiques of Religion and Technology in the Fallout Games, from the few preview pages I could glean through searches, has devoted at least a few pages about The Master as part of an extended discussion about his faction of Super Mutants.
Transcendence: A Study on Fallout in the Context of Gérard Genette’s Theory of Transtextuality went into detailed analysis about the Master over a few pages. It's a Master's thesis which appears to have been republished or cited in a couple of other sources, so your mileage may vary on what constitutes "significant scholarly influence".
Merging into another extended article is only a viable or optimal solution if said article actually exists. Haleth (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could this 3 sources be implemented in the article? So we'll see how it turns out, rather than seeing repetition source. I may be convinced that the article could be enough. Thank you. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 23:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the 2nd source we should be careful of citogenesis, it literally cites the Master's Wikia page in it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The last source additionally at most suggests inspiration for the Master may have come from Carpenter's The Thing and the film Dr. Strangelove. That's the extent of its conversation there. The only sources I feel comfortable with his the book but it's written in a weird meandering way it's hard to gleam anything from the previews, and it seems more to talk about what happened instead of examining it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Citogenesis is only an issue in this context, if it was citing the same Wikipedia article we are having a discussion about. Anyway, this article is not based on its Wikia counterpart, otherwise the GA reviewer or any admins who are responsible copyvio regulation would have picked it out already.
More often then not, the reason why peer reviewed academic journals and books may want to cite a Wikia article for their work is because these often contain a neatly compilation of the in-universe or primary material they want to refer to, instead of citing individual pages of a book or the video game in vague numerical terms, and readers who want to cross check the in-universe can simply refer to the Wikia article. Haleth (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the threshold to keep is very close, IMO, but I think the deciding factor is that so much of the secondary sourcing is related to the Master in the game itself; you can (and probably should) include a lot of it in the reception for Fallout. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's still a bit iffy; as David says, the threshold is close, but I think the sources provided - at least in the case of the first and third sources - are adequate to put me on this side of the threshold. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Fallout (video game)#Plot. Reviewing the three Haleth sources: (1) Lafleuriel's Fallout: A Tale of Mutation only discusses the Master in context of the general plot, which is then how we should cover the character in proportion. (I.e., it covers other characters and elements of the game and that would not justify separate articles based on that discussion either.) Bainbridge's Pessimism does the same: The Master is only discussed in passing context and is not analyzed in any depth. Denizel's Cybertextual Transcendence is an unpublished master's thesis, which we do not use for purposes of notability. Seeing no other rationales discuss the listicles currently in the article as compelling, it's unclear what sources actually assert this character's notability independent from the game. I can see some content being merged per WP:PRESERVE but since the target article is already featured status, I don't see it as a necessity. Sources on the impact/legacy of the character and game can be worked into the relevant parent sections. czar 03:42, 22 June 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 2022 FIFA World Cup Group C#Argentina vs Saudi Arabia. ✗plicit 23:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina v Saudi Arabia (2022 FIFA World Cup)[edit]

Argentina v Saudi Arabia (2022 FIFA World Cup) (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)

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and no enduring historical significance per WP:NEVENTS. WP:BEFORE revealed only WP:ROUTINE coverage. Search for "biggest World Cup shocks" revealed passing mentions but not enough to justify an independent article. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Javis Jones[edit]

Javis Jones (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)

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, as he is just 17 years old with two international caps, but fails GNG nonetheless. JTtheOG (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Walter (filmmaker)[edit]

John Walter (filmmaker) (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)

NN filmmaker - fails WP:ENT UtherSRG (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Fleming[edit]

Antoine Fleming (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)

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:13, 14 June 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. Less Unless (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Adapted Music Society[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Vancouver Adapted Music Society (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)

Previous AFD was no consensus. Perhaps we can come up with a firm keep or delete this time. Looks NN to me, even with the research from the previous AFD. UtherSRG (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, Companies, Technology, and Canada. UtherSRG (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep, same as last time. Same sources from my last !vote. Oaktree b (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per User:Oaktree b. I am suspicious of second, third, fourth AFDs in general, and in this one I see no new reasoning in the nomination, no assertion that the first AFD decision was very bad or is now outdated by changed coverage in other articles, or anything else. (I wonder, is the idea to keep AFD'ing everything that has ever been up for AFD before, until there's an occasion where not enough editors show up again, towards deleting everything ever questioned? That would perhaps make everything tidy in a certain way, but it is costly of other AFD editors' attention.) --Doncram (talk,contribs) 18:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it has an entry in the Encyclopedia of Disability (2006) [13]; full page feature in the Vancouver Sun that I think hasn't been mentioned before [14]; short but multi-paragraph story about their 25th anniversary [15]; and at least a couple dozens smaller mentions (maybe some bigger ones I missed though) in Newspapers.com. Skynxnex (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Cupid[edit]

Benjamin Cupid (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)

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This was probably the best I could find. JTtheOG (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jermaine Wilson[edit]

Jermaine Wilson (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)

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources. Fails WP:GNG. This article seems promising, but is not enough. JTtheOG (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. The notability requirements at WP:NCORP are clear, and while this company comes close to meeting it (with one qualifying source identified), notability ultimately was not demonstrated in this 3+ week long discussion. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zameen.com[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Zameen.com (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)

Classic WP:MILL - there are many sources of poor quality, which do not count as reliable sources. The content is very promotional NortonAngo (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*:eeehh. Can't call it promotional. That seems to be there business model. Yes, Tone can be improved. I vote keep and urge you change it as well. Kmugal (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep Easily meets WP:GNG. A simple search for Google news references provides ample and up to date, lasting coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammadrs (talk • contribs) 11:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fulfills WP:GNG There are more than 50 sources from Pakistani News Papers like Express Tribune, The News, Daily Pakistan etc. Seems legit to me. A tiny touch of promotional feel but not enough to be deleted. Fareehaaus (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It follows WP:GNG. There are multiple references in Pakistani print and digital media, and looks fine to me. I don't think it should be deleted. Thekhubaibiftikhar (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm of the view that articles that are borderline notable and in which the subject consistently tries to add promotional content should be deleted (it is necessary as they become a major time sink for volunteers). This appears to be the case here, as some newbies are trying to influence the discussion. On a side note, it seems that Zameen.com's parent company, Emerging Markets Property Group, is more notable than this topic. BookishReader (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a little suspect tbh but I haven't had the time to review this one. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:Delete Keep: Recent edits have made the page notable to a good extent. Overall feel is encyclopedic and promotional content is no more an issue. On the lines of WP:GNG for now. Shahramsherazi (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopening and relisting the AfD to enable further discussion. The comments by blocked sockpuppets have been struck.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Still succeeds WP:GNG. CastJared (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Shows SIGCOV with many sources but not notable. Classic WP:MILL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TandyTRS80 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Insight 3. Passes WP:GNG JunitaWorker (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't finished reviewing all the sources yet, but it's not clear to me that any of them will pass even a GNG level of scrutiny. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 21 pages of results for zameen.com, 14 for "Emerging Markets Property Group", a couple of variations for zameen "property portal", "Zamzama Property Group", "bproperty.com", etc, but not a single one of them suitable for GNG except maybe "Hacker defaces Zameen.com, leaks database online" in The Express Tribune, which I would rate as somewhat routine (so depth is maybe), but maybe somewhat less so and at least it's independent and not PRSOURCE. Given the coverage and article both focus on it as a business entity and not, say, a website, ORGCRIT is more appropriate than WEBCRIT, and by that standard ORGDEPTH is failed by a fairly wide margin, and ORGIND is also questionable. "Company does company things" like mergers and acquisitions, expansion, having products or merely existing is in no way significant coverage under any of our criteria. Can't find one, much less three, and the "61 sources" in the article before it was trimmed down are about the same quality as the ghits. In one word, it would be MILL. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Its a company and will do company things. The links are from prominent newspapers of the country they are based in. These do not seem like paid articles. The Express Tribune, Business Recorder, Daily Pakistan, Newsweek Pakistan, Khaleej Times, Aurora Megazine and TechAsia as prominent newspapers. Tone of independent articles cannot be controlled. Passes WP:GNG 203.99.55.210 (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC) — 203.99.55.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
BookishReader's found one source below that's usable for GNG at first glance, care to find another two to round things out? See WP:ORGCRIT for more details, but it's necessary to focus on quality, not quantity. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good reference, meets GNG/NCORP. We need another one at least though. HighKing++ 19:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Drifting to a no consensus, but still active; one more relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aszx5000 (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The only RS per the source bot is the last one, Aurora magazine. Some are iffy, while most don't even turn up. I can't find quality sources for the website, only simple property listings and the like. Oaktree b (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The reference quality is relative to the region. Need to look at the overall quality of the articles in Pakistan. Cannot hold these sources to the same standards in North America or Europe. The references seem to be relevant to the region. Follows WP:GNG 202.142.187.204 (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any non-english sources, in your opinion? Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found another in-depth reference about this website [16]. BookishReader (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This fails ORGIND, unfortunately. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, this relies entirely on information from the company/execs and has no "Independent Content" as per NCORP criteria. HighKing++ 19:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified or reworded. We appear to have identified one good source but multiple is required. If we can't identify another, my !vote is to Delete and I'm unable to locate another. HighKing++ 19:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-reliable sources. Only 1 passed NCORP. Toom much promotion and paid keep-editors here. 188.96.64.166 (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:MILL coverage, feels more like a vanity page than anything, no evidence of meeting NCORP/GNG (talk • contribs) 09:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Green Day related projects[edit]

Green Day related projects (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 don't see why this page needs to exist when all this material could easily be discussed over on the main Green Day article, especially given that many other bands that have sold more albums and have proven more culturally significant do not have articles listing their projects outside of their main band. This seems like a no-brainer to me, though I am opening this up for discussion so others can have a say. JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:55, 14 June 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 American Horror Story: Freak Show#Cast and characters following significant trimming Star Mississippi 20:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of American Horror Story: Freak Show characters[edit]

List of American Horror Story: Freak Show characters (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 redirected the 42k character long list with two primary sources as references, but it was restored and the user undoing my revert has stated to have no intention of improving the article.

As a list of characters from a particular series of a TV show, it's an unnecessary split of American Horror Story: Freak Show. It has no actual encyclopedic information to speak of, e.g., creation and inspiration, development, reception, legacy, etc. It just rehashes the plot of the series from the characters' point of view. Unnecessary, suitable for Fandom or a dedicated fansite. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for multiple reasons: A) "it's unnecessary" is not a good argument for article deletion, per WP:WEDONTNEEDIT. B) The burden to carry out the checks under step B, especially B2, of WP:BEFORE rests on the contributor requesting deletion prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, and this has not been done in this case. C) The article can be fixed through normal editing, meaning it is not a candidate for AfD per WP:BEFORE, Step C, D) the wiki user requesting deletion did not search for sources that might be added, instead deciding that it's not their job and thus is nobody's and deletion is preferable (bad practice per Step D of WP:BEFORE). E) This article does, in fact, have encyclopedic value, as much as any other list of characters in a fictional work does. Per MOS:TVLISTLEAD, Characters of Kingdom Hearts is considered "a good character list example [...] although it is not a television-related article". This sets precedent for character list articles (potentially) having encyclopedic value and not just being devoid of value by default by virtue of being a list article of fictional characters. E) the statement "It just rehashes the plot of the series from the characters' point of view" does not seem true at first glance. Can any concrete examples of this be given? The first main section, on Bette and Dot Tattler, is written from a neutral point of view and includes encyclopedic information about critical/award circuit reception to the actor's portrayal of the character(s) and information about the VFX production process. F) The statement that "the user undoing [the] revert[sic] has stated to have no intention of improving the article." is false (and would be irrelevant, in any case). The user in question (me) only stated that the burden to WP:IMPROVE does not rest solely on me, but on all contributors that are interested, and that if any issues are observed, you need to either try to fix them yourself, or raise them and give others time to fix them before deletion can be considered. This has not been done as of the time of this writing. Recommend speedykeep, this article can be fixed and is not worthless. Thranduil (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if my reply on the AFD page will automatically be transferred over to here, so sorry if it's a duplicate.
Keep for multiple reasons:
A) "it's unnecessary" is not a good argument for article deletion, per WP:WEDONTNEEDIT.
B) The burden to carry out the checks under step B, especially B2, of WP:BEFORE rests on the contributor requesting deletion prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, and this has not been done in this case.
C) The article can be fixed through normal editing, meaning it is not a candidate for AfD per WP:BEFORE, Step C,
D) the wiki user requesting deletion did not search for sources that might be added, instead deciding that it's not their job and thus is nobody's and deletion is preferable (bad practice per Step D of WP:BEFORE).
E) This article does, in fact, have encyclopedic value, as much as any other list of characters in a fictional work does. Per MOS:TVLISTLEAD, Characters of Kingdom Hearts is considered "a good character list example [...] although it is not a television-related article". This sets precedent for character list articles (potentially) having encyclopedic value and not just being devoid of value by default by virtue of being a list article of fictional characters.
F) the statement "It just rehashes the plot of the series from the characters' point of view" does not seem true at first glance. Can any concrete examples of this be given? The first main section, on Bette and Dot Tattler, is written from a neutral point of view and includes encyclopedic information about critical/award circuit reception to the actor's portrayal of the character(s) and information about the VFX production process.
G) The statement that "the user undoing [the] revert[sic] has stated to have no intention of improving the article." is false (and would be irrelevant, in any case). The user in question (me) only stated that the burden to WP:IMPROVE does not rest solely on me, but on all contributors that are interested, and that if any issues are observed, you need to either try to fix them yourself, or raise them and give others time to fix them before deletion can be considered. This has not been done as of the time of this writing. Recommend speedykeep, this article can be fixed and is not worthless. Thranduil (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd appreciate it if someone could clean up my entry here and on the AFD page proper (or tell me how to do so myself), apparently the text was duplicated on both. The text before "I'm not sure" shouldn't be here, and "Keep" should have been bolded. Thranduil (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with American Horror Story: Freak Show#Cast and characters (after significant trimming). In my opinion, lists of characters should only exist if the main article is long and needs to be split, or if information about the characters would be split across many pages (i.e., different seasons or different shows). Here, neither reason is met and basic background on the characters could be reasonably incorporated into the main article. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree with a merge. As a user, that's where I expected to see more/sufficient info about the characters (somewhere between just the character names and lengthy in-universe bios). But then again, other seasons of AHS have the same structure - just the character names in the main article, linking to a "list of.." article that's been (perhaps a bit overzealously) now removed by User:Soetermans Thranduil (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, character lists for any AHS season are probably unnecessary for the same reasons I listed above, so I agree with those redirects. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Consensus has tended towards an agreement that improvements have proven a standalone article can exist in an acceptable state. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Not Numbers[edit]

We Are Not Numbers (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, the references are not independent or reliable, they use own website as ref and youtube links, another wikipedia articles or unknown books , even the HuffPost article is a guest post by someone who belong to them, the article is WP:MASK. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 20:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have serious doubts that a WP:BEFORE check was performed before this AfD nomination was made. This internationally sponsored program has been running since 2005 and has dozens of mentions on Google Scholar. Bad nom. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
first: the project started in 2015 not 2005, second: please don't make it personal or dispraise the discussion and please focus on the main points.--Ibrahim.ID ✪ 22:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have rechecked the new sources added; refs (2 - 4 - 5 - 6) written by persons belong to The project and #11 from "Euro-Med Monitor" which the parent organization. so all this refs aren't independent, the publications are completely against WP:VERIFY because we can't access or read it, the Google Scholar search the result is too few (not dozens of mentions as Iskandar323 said) also the results don't give us real or verifiable results and maybe it are Trivial mentions, I really wonder; if this project is known or notable since 2015, why there is no independent or reliable sources about it? I found only 2 results in google search in Arabic and it's old news from 2015. that is mean article's subject is WP:BLP1E and this is another reason to delete it. --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 22:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That it has scholarly mentions at all is significant; plenty of subjects (least of all organizations) do not even garner a whisper in academia - to do so requires a degree of notability. WP:BLP1E is a BLP guideline and not applicable here. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Redirect, independent SIGCOV meeting the requirements of NCORP has not been found. Sources from people affiliated with the org obviously do not count as independent. JoelleJay (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, see Google Scholar - there are around a dozen scholarly mentions. Regardless of the significance of coverage in each individual instance, that is a significant depth of coverage and penetration into secondary academic literature. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per user JoelleJay. JunitaWorker (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Deletion discussions should be based on what information is out there, not just what is present on page. Even so, already on page, there are articles featured in Spectator Magazine, +972 magazine and Wafa, as well as scholarly articles with mentions in further reading (of at least a dozen scholarly mentions). The scholarly mentions alone are ample indication of WP:GNG, and we already have good example of independent, secondary coverage. I've now also added the links to Nonviolence International and Mondoweiss coverage that were already present and available on the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor page - all in all there's a good amount of sourcing present. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Spectator source is a letter to the editor and contains only a passing mention, it's SPS and trivial Red XN. The second +972 article is an interview about We Beyond the Fence, it doesn't have SIGCOV of WANN Red XN. Nonviolence International is a partner with WANN Red XN. The second Mondoweiss piece has 2 sentences introducing WANN, then the rest is repeating what WANN/its writers say, so is not independent Red XN. I couldn't find a Wafa link. JoelleJay (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a Haaretz article which is devoted to it. Zerotalk 06:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look, there are a dozen mentions in books and academic papers. That is quite unusual and for obvious reasons: this is a notable literacy programme that has been covered in secondary sources on literacy programmes. I can't access most of the books and papers, because they are behind paywall, but I'm guessing neither can you. Perhaps you should reserve judgment until someone turns up who can actually access those sources. Even if you dispute the notability, surely a redirect would be appropriate?Iskandar323 (talk) 06:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Haaretz article gives me a 403. I can access most academic sources. If you have any in particular you would like me to look at let me know. And sure, a redirect would be fine. JoelleJay (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay: The Haaretz article link definitely works for me. It's behind paywall, but you can typically open it the first time around on any given IP, and I think you can do the same trick again with Chrome Incognito mode. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay: Regarding checking out the academic sources, I would prioritize any of the three sources in the further reading. Google scholar suggests they have substantive passages on the subject. There's incidentally also a book mention now that I've added (in addition to the German work). Iskandar323 (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The requirement for sufficient coverage in published secondary sources is comfortably met. The OP's claim "the publications are completely against WP:VERIFY because we can't access or read it" indicates lack of understanding of policy. Zerotalk 11:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also this dissertation containing a 5-page chapter and more mentions of WANN. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure dissertations can count towards notability. They are typically not peer-reviewed and are generally primary. Has the author published about them in academic journals? JoelleJay (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay: WP:SCHOLARSHIP says they can be used with caution. In this case, it is quite niche topic, so one shouldn't expect the stars. PhD dissertation coverage is significantly better than what a lot of organizations get. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources that must be used with caution are generally not considered adequate for counting toward notability. Many non-profits get coverage in academic sources, appearing in scholarship is not at all unusual in human rights fields especially. JoelleJay (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Or Merge any salvageable content, less clearly several biased news reports, to Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor. Clear Propaganda, biassed, and missing any neutrality. See comments below. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a misunderstanding of policy. Neutral means with respect to sources. To assert that this material is biased or non-neutral, you need to provide the reliable sources that contrast/are at variance with the sources already present. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: A major problem I have, lacking any ostensible reason, is the article versus sources appear to be political smoke and mirrors. The article is titled: We Are Not Numbers, apparently about an organization doing supposedly good things, providing a vehicle allowing Palestinian youth to write "articles, poems, and personal essays about life in Gaza". A goal supposedly is to get "writers to focus on the everyday lives of people rather than the narratives of war and conflict". A not-so-subtle point can be found in the sources. "Where Is Justice For the Children Who Drowned in the Mediterranean", "To try to save his neighbors, he had to demolish his own house", "The Jabaliya Massacre: Heaven Embraces Five Angels", "Living among the dead in Gaza", written by a young Palestinian man that says "he aspires to become “a voice for Palestine", and published in +972 Magazine. Read a little further towards the bottom, We are in an unprecedented and dangerous era in Israel-Palestine. The Israeli extreme right government has made its plans crystal clear. It wants carte blanche to shoot-to-kill Palestinians. Another source, "Deported: Israel's war against Palestine solidarity activists". How about "Israel bans right activist from entering Gaza", written by Pam Bailey, co-founder of the organization? Bailey is the international secretary of the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor and director of We Are Not Number. The Human Rights Monitor article, which has coverage on this organization, states they have "workshops to train students on several techniques to modify Wikipedia articles in both Arabic and English". Another source "Palestinians in Gaza are bringing their stories of siege to Israelis".
If Wikipedia is still operating under the auspice of neutrality, one of the five fundamental principles, care should be taken to ensure organizations are not high-jacking certain areas. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Otr500: You seem to have an issue with the stories that are mere example of content being featured in outlets. None of those sources were used to support factual statements about the organization, and I almost removed them before: the confusion here has provided the impetus to do so. Please can you re-assess the page based solely on the actually supporting sources used. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JunitaWorker, @JoelleJay, @Ibrahim.ID: Please can you all check out the latest version. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Iskandar323 My issue is two-fold. #1)- The items listed as references or sources, as you stated, "None of those sources were used to support factual statements about the organization". 2)- That is not only an issue with notability it is an issue I see as subversive literature. NPOV becomes a serious issue when an article is not balanced. This article should be about the organization not a tool for advancement of any cause of Pam Bailey or the Human Rights Monitor. I am not sure what is meant by "stories that are mere example of content being featured in outlets". I looked at one of the "sources" still in the article (Katz, Y) and see mention of a WhatsApp group and Border Gone. I can't tie the three together so the source has no importance to the article that I can see. I struggle with the thought that new writers are schooled on how to manipulate (modify) Wikipedia. I can see some of the content of this article being covered in Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor (as it is) but no evidence it deserves a stand-alone article. This is why I suggest a merge as an ATD. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Otr500: I'm sorry, but if you cannot see the references to the subject in Katz, that simply means you are just skimming the abstract but haven't actually clicked on the link to the dissertation itself. There are five pages on the subject there. On the subject of balance, you keep making claims about this, but you have not actually produced any sources countering statements on the page to suggest that there are balance issues. Balance issues aren't something that you can simply suppose: you need to demonstrate them. The stories I mentioned were the news outlets that hosted We Are Not Numbers content. You complained about those links, so I obligingly removed them here. It would be polite if you could acknowledge this and the that this particular issue which you raised has been resolved. If you can't acknowledge the resolution of issues raised, you are not acting very collegiately. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GNG met, here's another feature. https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2017/4/20/writers-aim-to-challenge-stereotypes-about-gaza Selfstudier (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A great deal of work has gone into improving this article since its nomination and I encourage editors who examined it when it was first nominated to give it another look. I think some additional work could be done to improve the tone so that it is more NPOV but I think there is enough sources now to retain it on the project. I think we have to consider this writing project apolitically, would we keep it if the young writers were Ukrainian or from the Sudan or from another area of conflict? Liz Read! Talk! 00:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the later proposed sources, and the article in its current state, would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I agree some improvements have been made. I thought about changing to "Weak keep", however, Iskandar323, an Admin has echoed my concerns about NPOV mentioning the tone of the article so apparently I am not as far off as you seem to think. NPOV is one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles that includes Advocacy, and that is what I see. It would not matter if "the young writers were Ukrainian or from the Sudan or from another area of conflict". I don't have a pony in the race. I rarely edit any contentious topics and when I do it is usually minor edits.
The subject is a split from Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, so has coverage on Wikipedia, and I do not see the justification for a stand-alone article, especially just to be apolitical, since it is less neutral than the parent article with questionable sources. Some of the advocacy can be seen in the sourcing. The Middle East Eye source states, "Deported: Israel's war against Palestine solidarity activists". The author, Pam Bailey, is the person claiming to have been banned. Another: "Israel bans right activist from entering Gaza". These are sources that may be acceptable in the parent article but what is the need for being in an article about an organization and young writers?
I consider that the Katz "Thesis" is just that and does not advance notability. The Mondoweiss source is a blog. The article would likely be considered among the Contentious topics. I changed the link to Ben Norton (who does not have an article) to reflect the redirect to "The Grayzone" which is considered a "far-left news website and blog". At any rate, it does indicate what type of "training" young writers are getting direction from when they are schooled on how to modify Wikipedia. I may end up in the minority but I guess that is alright now and again. -- Otr500 (talk) 07:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV has nothing to do with notability. If you think it is POV, and have sources that prove it by contradicting the information already on the page, you should balance the material by adding those sources. What you should be considering here is the best anchoring sources, not the insufficiencies that you find in just a few of them. There is now a book source, a full length Haaretz article, a PhD dissertation, a +972 magazine article and an Aljazeera article. That's a pretty broad range of coverage without even getting on to the scholarly mentions, which only haven't been expounded because I lack access. NB: Incidentally, while it's irrelevant, this article was in no way split from Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor; it was actually created before it, in 2016, while the latter was only created in 2019. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. This would be a "keep" or "no consensus" judging from the numbers alone (~5 deletes to ~9 keeps), but that's not the way we evaluate consensus on Wikipedia. A considerable number of keep !votes are not rooted in our policies and guidelines: I gave little or no weight to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, !votes that weren't rooted in sources, appeals to the guideline on redirects, etc. A handful of the remaining editors did try to supply sources, but there was no real rejoinder to the delete !voters' arguments that they lacked independence, were only trivial mentions, and/or were about the sport rather than Alizade himself. (The bludgeoning and canvassing also did not strengthen the keep side's case.) All in all this adds up to a narrow consensus to delete, without prejudice against creating an article about the sport or the federation (and potentially redirecting this title to that article) in the future. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Farid Alizade[edit]

Farid Alizade (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 independent establishment of notability Amigao (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The work in progress template is posted in the article, the World Alpagut Federation cooperates with world important organizations such as TAFİSA and Fair play. links prove the importance of the organization and its leader Farid Alizade.
  1. Alpagut: The Turkic World's Martial Art Making Waves Globally
  2. "3. Dünya Alpagut Şampiyonası", Bursa'da başladı
  3. Alpagut rüzgarı Bursa’da esti
  4. Azərbaycanda I Beynəlxalq Turan Oyunları keçiriləcək
  5. newspaper agazete.com
  6. Azərbaycan Respublikası Daxili İşlər Nazirliyinin Polis Akademiyası
  7. Azərbaycanlı deputat federasiya prezidenti oldu musavat.com
  8. Reviving Turkic Sports: An Interview With Farid Alizade, President Of The International Turan Games Committee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.191.67.51 (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

5.191.26.109 (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is the founder and first president of the World Alpagut Federation. He is the founder of the Turan games committee. He is an important person who created martial arts in Azerbaijan.--Mehdi Fayyazli (Talk) 09:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being one of the founders of the World Alpagut Federation makes him completely encyclopedic, the man founded the world federation. Pass per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria --Samral (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above reasons to have the article kept. Valid links listed above and Authority control, referance ISNI meet the WP:GNG, I think the publication seems OK. Notable in the Azerbaijani context. I am attaching the important document of the World Federation to the discussion. Extract from the Registry of Entrepreneurial and Non-Entrepreneurial (Non-Commercial) Legal Entities / The World Alpagut Federation was accepted as a member of International Martial Arts Games Committee --ETIBARMEMMEDOV TT me 15:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although the consensus is to keep, two of the voters seem very inactive, and the remaining one is the creator who did not edit other pages for two months. Only one user tried to explain adequately.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It's great that he create the martial art, makes him noteworthy, but we need sourcing discussing the individual to be notable for wikipedia's purposes. I'm not seeing that in this case. Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakish delete, I'm far from convinced. Being the founder of the World Alpagut Foundation would be more meaningful if I could find any sources suggesting that this organisation is written-about or known to anyone except the handful of people directly involved in it. For this, and for the International Turan Games committee I am finding only LinkedIn, Crunchbase, Instagram, Twitter, and the organisations' own websites, none of which are even remotely indicators of notability. I'm classing my delete as Weakish because I cannot assess Azerbaijani sources, and there may be stuff out there if I could read it. Elemimele (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If you go a little deeper, then you will abandon your comment. In general, those who comment on this question do not seem to be those who know this area in depth. I think the comments could be more reasonable. It would be nice to get the opinion of those who have a wide and informed opinion in other discussions, for example, let's get the opinion of these two Wikipedians. Dear Necrothesp and Dear CactiStaccingCrane please comment.--ETIBARMEMMEDOV TT me 18:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Dear Oaktree b But these shortcomings do not preclude the existence of an article when the subject of the article is significant. I must say, at this moment, the retelling of the article's view, as presented from your position, has not satisfied me. I suspect that this is your personal opinion. What specific doubts do you have about Alizade's credibility? I see no good reason to delete the article; there are indications of encyclopedic significance.
If any points of significance are controversial or unclear, they should be discussed. If the article contains advertisements, nonsense, or copyvio, they must be deleted. You declare that none of the listed positions give a person significance. But how can you prove it?
Senior managers, members of boards of directors, and similar governing bodies, along with the activities of the enterprise, are represented by independent authoritative sources. You could still consider the subject as a public figure.
Anadolu Agency (tr):
https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/spor/dunya-alpagut-sampiyonasinda-12-madalya-alan-sporcular-yeni-hedeflere-odaklandi/2763314
Türkiye Wikipedia for Alpagut Martial Art (tr):
https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpagut_(d%C3%B6v%C3%BC%C5%9F_sanat%C4%B1)
Haberler.com (News) (tr):
https://www.haberler.com/guncel/kazakistan-da-eski-turk-dovus-sanati-alpagut-11294797-haberi/
HaberTurk TV Official Website News (tr): https://www.haberturk.com/bursa-haberleri/29633502-3-dunya-alpagut-sampiyonasi-bursada-basladi
DHA (Demiroren News Agency) Official News Portal (tr): Bilal Erdoğan attended the Turkic World Ancestor Sports Festival: https://www.dha.com.tr/gundem/bilal-erdogan-turk-dunyasi-ata-sporlari-senligine-katildi-2104540
Ministry of Education of Republic of Turkiye (tr):
1. https://nallihan.meb.gov.tr/www/dunya-alpagut-sampiyonasinda-dereceye-giren-ogrencilerimizin-ilce-milli-egitim-mudurumuz-bayram-benliceyi-ziyareti/icerik/954
2. https://nallihan.meb.gov.tr/www/ilcemizde-sportif-basari/icerik/951
3. https://nallihan.meb.gov.tr/www/turan-alpagut-turk-dovus-sanatlari-kategorisinde-ogrencilerimiz-dunya-sampiyonu-oldular/icerik/845
IHA (Ihlas News Agency) (tr): https://www.iha.com.tr/bursa-haberleri/ata-sporlarinda-renkli-bulusma-3823287/
Inflicts World News Portal: https://inflics.com/arwa-afridi-wins-2-gold-medals-at-world-alpagut-championship/
Parliamentary Assembly of Turkic States (former President of WAF after Farid Alizade):
https://www.turk-pa.org/person/4-nizami-jafarov
Kyrgyz News AKIPRESS: https://akipress.com/news:672155:Kyrgyzstanis_win_4_gold_medals_at__World_Alpagut_Cup_2022_in_Turkey/
Azerbaijani News Portals about Alpagut:
1. http://www.today.az/news/sports/166824.html
2. https://oval.az/azerbaijan-rank-first-overall-medal-table-world-alpagut-championships/
3. https://en.axar.az/news/officialnews/136036.html
4. https://www.news.az/news/world-alpagut-cup-kicks-off-in-baku
Kazakhstan News Portal KazInform: https://www.inform.kz/en/kazakhstan-set-to-revive-alpagut-old-turkic-martial-art_a3409227 Voen.nezer (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, but we need sourcing that discusses the person, or we're just blowing smoke. I can't judge the qualify of most of those sources. Oaktree b (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't ping me further, I've given my thoughts and have moved on. Oaktree b (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ReplyThe world federation should be introduced to the Wikipedia community in a completely proper encyclopedic tone.

Let's look at the problem that caused the discussion from a different point of view. Alpagut has been around for nine years and already has ties in over 50 countries worldwide. So, isn't English-language media missing out by not covering it?

Dear Elemimele, the sources you listed are social media coverage. I noticed your attempt to prioritize LinkedIn, Crunchbase, Instagram, Twitter directly over Federation sources, frankly I didn't like it when I looked at your comment and that's why I wanted to prepare an extensive comment and present it to you and the community with all the sources.

And yet, it seems its story is somewhat untold in the English language. But let us not be restricted by language, for when we delve into different regions and languages, we discover that Alpagut's story is indeed being told with fervor.

Italy: The Italians, for instance, have embraced Alpagut. From a touching piece in the Milan Newspaper to the recognition from the Italy Kurash Federation the organization has made its mark.

  1. https://www.gazzettadimilano.it/sport/intervista-a-vasif-namazov-fondatore-dellalpagut-vasil-namazov-alpagut-founder/
  2. http://www.kurashitalia.com/alpagut/

Pakistan: The narrative continues in Pakistan. Celebrating their athletes' victory to covering the events, Pakistan acknowledges the impact of Alpagut. The Pakistani media continuous contribute to Alpagut's growing global presence

  1. https://dailytimes.com.pk/508797/pakistans-woman-athlete-wins-two-golds-at-world-alpagut-championship/
  2. https://www.thedayspring.com.pk/tag/2nd-world-alpagut-championship/
  3. https://www.brecorder.com/news/548289
  4. https://www.oyeyeah.com/sports/female-athlete-wins-two-golds-at-the-2nd-world-alpagut-championship/

Iraq: In Iraq, too, Alpagut's influence is apparent. From government portals to universities they're talking about Alpagut.

  1. https://alsabaah.iq/43296-.html
  2. https://mofa.gov.iq/baku/martyrs-of-the-ministry-of-foreign-affair/?paged=40
  3. https://shafaq.com/ar/ريـاضة/عراقي-يحصد-ذهبية-بطولة-الباغوت-العالمية-في-تركيا
  4. https://uowasit.edu.iq/ar/

Kyrgyzstan: Kyrgyzstan joins this global conversation through its own online platform

  1. https://ru.kyrgyztoday.org/archives/340584

Kazakhstan: Kazakhstan echoes the enthusiasm, with its sports portals filled with Alpagut content

  1. https://www.sportinfo.kz/news/show/name/sportsmeny_iz_aktau_zavoevali_pervye_mesta_na_chempionate_mira_po_alpagut_162426.html
  2. https://www.sports.kz/news/sportsmenyi-iz-aktau-zavoevali-pervyie-mesta-na-chempionate-mira-po-alpagut

Russia: Russia joins the chorus, sharing Alpagut's stories

  1. http://www.derbent.ru/press-tsentr/novosti/208706/
  2. https://az.sputniknews.ru/20160118/403403152.html

Azerbaijan: Azerbaijan, too, showcases Alpagut on various platforms, even governmental ones

  1. https://mys.gov.az/en/press/news/n/24435/the-astara-athlete-took-the-1st-position-in-the-v-championship-in-the-alpagut-martial-arts
  2. https://www.fhn.gov.az/index.php?eng/news/xeber/2021/11/24/41733/4/1

Jordan: Even Jordan, with its news portal pays homage to Alpagut.

  1. https://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.aspx?storyid=1096092497&title=Baku-to-host-World-Alpagut-Cup&src=RSS

International Recognition: And there's no shortage of international recognition

  1. https://www.icsspe.org/content/new-member-world-alpagut-federation
  2. http://tafisa.org/supporter-members
  3. http://www.fairplayinternational.org/cifp-members-ordinary-members
  4. https://www.turksoy.org/en-US/news/2019-07-24-4th-festival-of-traditional-sports-of-the-turkic-world-in-bursa-kocayayla
  5. https://www.thenews.com.pk/tns/detail/959596-arwa-the-grappling-queen

Turkey:

  1. https://raillynews.com/2022/07/ata-sporlarinda-renkli-bulusma/
  2. https://www.raillynews.com/2021/11/Alpagut-Eurasian-Championship-will-be-held-in-Bursa/
  3. https://www.trthaber.com/haber/spor/3-dunya-alpagut-sampiyonasi-bursada-basladi-728087.html
  4. https://www.trtspor.com.tr/haber/diger-sporlar/3-dunya-alpagut-sampiyonasi-bursada-yapilacak-203614.html
  5. https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/bilim-teknoloji/turkiyenin-yeni-akilli-dolanan-muhimmati-alpagut-tanitildi/
  6. http://www.tdbb.org.tr/?p=19154&lang=en
  7. https://www.bursa.bel.tr/haber/alpagut-ruzgari-bursada-esti-32356

Turkey, with its several news outlets showcases Alpagut with pride.


Alpagut is well known in the Arab countries, and looking at the Arab sources, the Federation cannot be considered a new creation, and it is obvious that this is not the case. Interesting, right?

  1. shafaq.com
  2. alsabaah.iq

Behind this global recognition is the man who started it all, Farid Alizade, the founder and first president of the World Alpagut Federation. His vision and leadership have undeniably put Alpagut on the map. It's time we recognize him as a 'Wikipedic' person - an individual who has made a meaningful impact worthy of widespread acknowledgment. He is now Executive Member of the Board of World Alpagut Federation and continuously supporting Alpagut.

I spent approximately one hour researching this information on the internet, focusing primarily on resources in the English language. I'm aware that there is an abundance of news in the native languages of various countries which I haven't tapped into all. I am confident that a more thorough investigation would reveal even more about Alpagut. I trust in the fairness of Wikipedia's administrators, and I believe they will take note of this information and will decide to keep this page.

These information that I just searched on the internet for 1 hours. I believe you will find much more about Alpagut.--ETIBARMEMMEDOV TT me 16:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not ultimately my decision, I'm just one opinion. But if you want the article kept, my advice would be to find just three really good sources that are not interviews, press-releases or publicity pieces produced by the organisations associated with Alizade or Alpagut. Just three truly independent articles would be enough. I don't doubt that Alpagut's story is being told with fervour, but fervour isn't helpful: The story has to have been told by someone who isn't closely involved in Alpagut or one of its events. Elemimele (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's fascinating that you are asking for sources from third parties who are not affiliated with Alpagut. Are you proficient in Azerbaijani, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Russian, Arabic, Urdu, Hindi, Italian and a few other languages? Because the information I found within an hour includes instances of Alpagut being covered by third parties that have no affiliation with Alpagut. For instance, Etno Sport, which is unaffiliated with Alpagut, has covered it. There are more among the sources I shared, and they outnumber the three you asked for. Have you noticed them?
Moreover, it is essential to note that the sports community is a niche community. You can't expect to find a person or a party unaffiliated and unknowledgeable about the sport to discuss or write about it. It is not a perfume, fashion, or a car where everyone can express an opinion when asked. Only those involved in the community and understand the sport can provide the most informed coverage. ETIBARMEMMEDOV TT me 05:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are several misunderstandings going on here. Firstly, this is an article about a person, not the sport, so we shouldn't digress too far into the notability of the martial art itself. In many ways it would have been better to start with an article on the martial art rather than on its founder. But we are where we are. Secondly, sources are relevant for two different purposes: to back up facts, and to demonstrate notability. It is fine to use sources intimately connected with a subject to back up facts (with the proviso that we do not expect them to be as reliable; for example, an actress may choose to knock a few years off her age when interviewed). But we need unconnected sources to demonstrate notability.
The big question for Farid Alizade is this: is he a big fish in a pond of which few outside the pond has heard? If so, by all means promote the pond, but do that somewhere outside Wikipedia, and come back to Wikipedia when the pond is notable. There is nothing wrong with niche communities, but Wikipedia's interest in them fades the smaller the niche becomes. You've produced a very long list of interviews and publicity pieces issued by organisations who work with him. What I was looking for was, for example, a national newspaper that chose to write about him without any prompting from him, his publicist, or an organisation for which he works, or which is sponsoring him in some way. At this point, I am going to bow out because I think I'm verging on WP:BLUDGEON, but I would advise you also to be aware of not only that page, but also WP:COI. If you are closely associated with the subject of the article, you should declare it, and if you work for him or one of his organisations, you definitely need to declare it. I'm going to drop out now, we really need more diverse input. Elemimele (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
information Administrator note Hatted per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Regarding the sock's allegations of sockpuppetry (heh), at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elshadiman I did not see an actionable case that 90AA123 is a sock of Elshad. However, @90AA123, please stop bludgeoning. You've said your piece. Let others say theirs. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Delete this user is a sockpuppet of Elshad Iman (Elşad İman). He has personal connection with the discussed person (Farid Alizade). See his instagram post (archive)
    Also, he has created Elkhan Bashirov article which was edited by Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) on Azwiki. Also, his discussion style is the exact copy of his. He e-mails or personally contacts people to vote in his AfD/AfU pages, as you can see on this page. Necessary steps should be taken. Could you evaluate this further? Please, help to take global block measurements. I'm writing with this user profile for security issues and I apologize for that. Thanks in advance! @Ponyo, RoySmith, Sir Sputnik, Vanjagenije, and Oshwa: sorry for the tag --Vikiistifadəçi (talk) 10:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vikiistifadəçi Claiming someone is a sockpuppet with little evidence is an WP:UNCIVIL procedure. If you truly think that (and have enough evidence to support it), take it to WP:SPI. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 10:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fakescientist8000 thank you, but I guess, this is far from being suspicious. I provided this information to others attention as he canvasses the discussion. If not taken, I will apply for the SPI as well. Vikiistifadəçi (talk) 10:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I request you to investigate this matter and serious allegation. ETIBARMEMMEDOV TT me 11:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply "Hmm, 'stop the condescending discussion'. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here. We are focused on evaluating the necessity of this article, not engaging in trivial debates. I am no silly sock or sock puppet account.
  • This AfD seems to be based on unrealistic expectations that a simple internet or Google search will not yield substantial coverage. After all, the internet is not the end of all information. There are sources in newspapers and magazines, which should be sufficient for WP:GNG.
  • Currently, the English-language Wikipedia boasts over 6 million articles. Among them, there are entries on individuals who have won merely a single silver medal in sports, with their fame often limited to their home countries. Shouldn't the founder of an international organization be given equal consideration, especially when the organization and its activities are detailed in multiple sources? Take a moment to research it, and you'll discover that every international competition they organize witnesses participation from over 20 countries, with dozens of silver medals being awarded. Hypothetically speaking, if this page is deleted at a time when a rapidly growing organization is being actively managed by a dedicated board of directors, how likely is it that someone will recreate this article in 1, 3, or 5 years? Moreover, should a page for the World Alpagut Federation be created, Farid Alizade's name is bound to appear as one of its founders and as the 1st President of the Federation. After all, he made history in 2014 as the first Azerbaijani to preside over a World Federation when he founded the WAF.
  • My recent research reveals that the current president of this federation is Jala Ahmedova, a member of the Parliament of Azerbaijan, and the first vice president is Konul Nurullayeva, another member of the Parliament of Azerbaijan. Both are renowned in the sports world. While Konul has her own English-language Wikipedia page, Azerbaijani contributors are cautious about adding her Alpagut role to her English-language Wikipedia page, out of concern for potential backlash and the scrutiny of overly active users. So, how else are we, the Azerbaijanis, to expand on English-language Wikipedia entries about our notable figures, if not through foreign initiative?
  • I place my trust in the fairness of Wikipedia's administrators. I anticipate that the Supreme Administrative Council will exercise a just influence on this process and its outcome.
  • The case is simple: Sources have been provided above that establish significant coverage. Thus, it fulfills the WP:GNG ULPS criteria.
Keep per my comment at 14:53 above — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion has turned into something of a morass, between back and forth sock allegations (and actual socking), and discussion of tangentially related matters.
The question is about source material covering Alizade. Not sources about Aipagut, not sources about organizations he founded, but specifically about him. If discussion can stay focused to that, it would become much clearer what we need to do here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete: agreeing with the nominator, most of the coverage is either non-independent or passing mentions, the sources don't establish the person's notability. - Kevo327 (talk) 08:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Not seeing a good reason to delete. I'm Notified of this discussion at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Azerbaijan. There is relevant content. In any case, I think keep per OwenBlacker. I cannot find a single reason at WP:RFD#DELETE which might apply here. Regarding the claim these pages are all no longer linked to from anywhere, this is demonstrably untrue - every single one of them has inward links.--Sabin.K.M (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The crux of this discussion hinges on the reliability and relevance of the provided sources. While the links mentioned above are very strong, my research led me to discover several equally sufficient, albeit not top-tier, links that had not yet been introduced in the discussion. Here are a few: 1(one), 2(two), 3(three), 4(four), 5(five). These further validate the possibility of locating ample sources about F. Alizade. In my assessment, this individual has enough notability to warrant his own Wikipedia article. It is of significant importance to convey to the world the historical journey of the founder of Alpagut sport, which has gained a global presence. Plus, let's not forget that he is the founder of Turan Games. To demonstrate notability, both primary and secondary criteria can be used.--Nuray95 (talk) 07:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep  The subject at hand undoubtedly warrants attention, and additional references would strengthen its case. While it's true that the sources directly discussing the head of the federation are limited here, it doesn't mean they are non-existent. A thorough search might still uncover pertinent sources.

The purpose of Wikipedia is to educate people on a wide array of topics, both major and minor. It's important to note, however, that this is not a voting process. AfD discussions, like any other discourse on Wikipedia, aim to reach a consensus based on interpretation of guidelines and evidence. In this context, the focus is on establishing whether the article meets Wikipedia's standards.

Everyone is, of course, free to express their opinions. But the goal here is to facilitate a discussion that ultimately leads to a rough consensus. In light of this, I stand by my previous comment, asserting that the article is encyclopedic in nature and deserves to be kept updated. There is little value in revisiting the discussion repeatedly without new grounds for argument.

Dear colleague @Phil Bridger, if I have missed anything in my thoughts, I invite you as an active user to make your additions, please take a look to create objectivity.-Samral (talk) 07:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – the sources presented here and in the article do not satisfy our basic criteria for biographies. There are several mentions in passing, but no in-depth coverage, certainly not from multiple reliable independent sources. – bradv 00:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please note that failing to meet these criteria doesn't necessarily result in the deletion of the article. These are merely guidelines that some editors keep in mind when deciding whether to retain an article, along with relevant policies and instructions like Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In other words, these rules have been written by Wikipedians. At the same time, an objective approach should be taken towards this issue. For instance, there is no e.g. PR (promo) in the text of the article itself.

Secondary sources reveal the significance of the individual, and there are other independent sources related to this, per the Additional criteria. While Wikipedia aims to feature humanity's most notable individuals as extensively as possible, it is not interested in including just anyone, for more detailed information see: WP:NOT.

What I want to point out is that Wikipedians in general have written guidelines for whether this or any other article can stay on Wikipedia, but they aren't specific, and this is their advantage. For example, you and I don't exactly know what a "notable individual" is, or we don't have clear standards for it.

Before making this remark, I took note of several individuals associated with martial arts. While they may not be widely recognized by the public, they are nonetheless represented on English Wikipedia:

There could potentially be hundreds of such names, many of which might even be mythical. It's crucial to consider that if an individual who established a school in a city merits an English Wikipedia page, then it is logically consistent for the founder of a burgeoning world federation to also have a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.191.59.132 (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • last reply I kindly request that when finalizing the discussion and accepting the consensus for the benefit of the page, please do not overlook the last presented arguments.

I saw the announcement for a documentary named "ALPAGUT" on the widely watched Turkic-language channel TRT Belgesel. It's set to air on 25 June 22:00 UTC+3. It's noted in the news that Farid Alizade has given an interview for this documentary. This can serve as a source here.

For those who are interested in learning more about Alizade, I am sharing links in three different languages in English, на Русском, Azərbaycan Türkcəsində

I am inviting my colleagues whom I trust and hope will not remain indifferent to this, @Beshogur, @Xaneqînî, @Moguy. Thanks in advance.--ETIBARMEMMEDOV TT me 20:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Thank you Etibar. I support keeping this page. I think he is significant enough to have a wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moguy (talk • contribs)
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. Views are split between keeping the article as is, or moving to Clive and Vera Ramaciotti Foundation. The latter can be done outside of the scope of an AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Ramaciotti[edit]

Clive Ramaciotti (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:BIO for lack of coverage. He appears to be famous for setting up "Clive and Vera Ramaciotti Foundation" but that just redirects to his sister's article. LibStar (talk) 06:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge: Yet again, LibStar nominates an article for deletion without considering first whether a merge might be the more appropriate outcome; and being wilfully blind to local cultural context in evaluating sources (as per discussion below with SproulesLane) Jack4576 (talk) 07:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the sources to establish notability? I did a search so "being wilfully blind to local cultural context" is wrong. LibStar (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, can't find sources for this, Karnataka (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*KEEP or at very least MERGE with Vera Ramaciotti or create a Ramaciotti Family article as they are one of the most extraordinary philanthropic families in Australian history. They are fascinating given their non-Anglo background at a time when Sydney and the whole of the country was very “White Bread”. SproulesLane (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How does he meet notability guidelines? LibStar (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Google Clive and Vera Ramaciotti and see that they have funded close to $100 million to biomedical research alone and I think you have your answer. I’m happy to merge them and list it under the name of the foundation if editors think I should but I’m certainly not going to go to the trouble if others end up deleting the article. SproulesLane (talk) 04:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide actual sources. LibStar (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Clive and Vera Ramaciotti Foundation: Fails GNG and BIO, but there appears to be enough SIGCOV in ProQuest to support an article about the foundation and enough refs to support sections for the founders, Vera Ramaciotti can also be moved here. The end result will be a solid article, but there are not sources to support two stand alone bios.  // Timothy :: talk  04:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the cited sources are enough to pass WP:BIO, and no other sufficient coverage can be found. If Clive and Vera Ramaciotti Foundation is actually a stand alone article, I'll vote for redirect, but before that article is created, deletion seem to be the only viable option. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep at least until someone can explain why the Biographical cuttings on Clive Ramaciotti held by the National Library of Australia are not good enough. Even if after examining them and they are found wanting then deletion is still not needed. Whether covered in an article on the foundation or his sister and redirecting or merging there then no reason to actually delete. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on The National Library of Australia determining that Clive Ramaciottii is sufficiently notable to hold a file of his biographical cuttings. On googling his hame alone I find 101 mentions before it gives up the ghost … In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 101 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included. Even though 10 of those are Wikipedia copycat biographies 90 mentions of Clive indicate that he has made a very notable contribution to biomedical research all over Australia. The many SMH & Age articles written about him after his death aren’t available on Trove but some from News Limited and The Australian are. SproulesLane (talk) 00:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You cannot !vote twice. WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a reason for keeping. You must specify precise sources. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not an expert on Articles for deletion as clearly our serial deletionist LibStar is but we are now very clear on his viewpoint on this matter but I have changed my view. I have deleted my original comment and would appreciate it if I could do it myself rather than being bullied by another editor. My understanding is that this isn’t a Vote so much as a community consensus and I look forward to hearing what our wider community thinks on this call for deletion. In the meantime, LibStar thank you for teaching me as a fellow editor how to blank out my original thoughts on this matter. I truly appreciate your assistance. SproulesLane (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not bullying you, I'm suggesting how you can improve your keep argument. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on either the sources or the National Library of Australia cuttings?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clive and Vera Ramaciotti Foundation redirects. At the moment, there's nowhere to merge this so that cannot be considered. One more spin for some policy based input and less finger pointing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Freeman (actor)[edit]

Eric Freeman (actor) (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:NACTOR; he only has one significant role in Silent Night, Deadly Night 2. Needs two or more significant roles in order to be eligible. None of his other roles are significant enough. The Film Creator (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Daniels (TV presenter)[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be notable, and I can't find any secondary sources to reference. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:05, 14 June 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 23:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A.R.S. Public School[edit]

A.R.S. Public School (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 to meet the criteria of WP:NORG. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:49, 14 June 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 14:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Greasley[edit]

Horace Greasley (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 fails WP:Notability, particularly but not exclusively WP:GNG. I also think it fails on WP:V and WP:RS (I can find no reliable secondary sources confirming claims). The article is based on a memoir by an individual who claimed that he was the soldier in a specific picture with Heinrich Himmler and that he escaped 200 times from a German POW camp. These claims have been proven to be false in non-deprecated sources (e.g. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/historians-debunk-claims-of-200-escapes-in-memoir-of-pow-horace-greasley-bxr8fp7mn). Claims proven to be false can be notable because of wider ramifications; in this case there are no such wider ramifications and so the notability claim is based solely on the existence and legitimacy of the claims. The claims have been shown to be false, and since the proof of falsity is not of itself notable to WP:GNG standards, the article fails WP:Notability (and the other policies referred to above) and should be deleted. Emmentalist (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm not sure if this meets notability guidelines, but I do want to note, his claims being false and that being pointed out in WP:RS may be a sign of notability and that the article needs re-writing to meet guidelines like WP:V instead of deletion. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Full obituary in a major national newspaper. We have always considered this is sufficient to meet notability requirements. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A notable fantasist. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added a reference to The Times article questioning the autobiography. For "notable hoax", see WP:NHOAX ("for example, a hoax may have received sustained media attention, been believed by thousands of people including academics, or been believed for many years"). The book was a bestseller which suggests it was "believed by thousands". 68.189.242.116 (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎ per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 14:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Siraj Khan[edit]

Siraj Khan (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 actor. All sources cited appeared to be self-published and lacking in editorial oversight. The sources are praise singing websites which fall below Wikipedia standard Noneate (talk) 14:04, 14 June 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. WP:HEY Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Nevins[edit]

Jess Nevins (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 writer with only references being passing at best Simonm223 (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Library Journal article is paywalled so I can't comment on it. The Washington Post article does not exist. Publisher's Weekly is passing mention only. Kirkus is passing only in both. In all three cases they're reviews of anthologies he did introductory essays for - that's weak for author notability. Forbes can't be treated as a reliable source for online only content because it sells blog URLs to anyone who wants to pay. This effectively leaves the Black Gate and the Project MUSE refs - I'd argue that's pretty thin mentions to establish notability. Simonm223 (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those reviews in Kirkus are Kirkus Indie where the author pays in order to get their book reviewed, it therefore does not count towards notability per WP:KIRKUS. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching this and people should ignore those reviews. However, they were just passing mentions and there are plenty of other credible sources to prove notability. Plus there's also an entire deep-dive review article in Kirkus about the subject that is good to use.--SouthernNights (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Simonm223, I fixed the link to the Washington Post article in my original comment. The Locus review is also a deep dive review, and the Forbes review is absolutely notable (per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Forbes is given the highest rating for a reliable source). Plus all the reviews that I said can be accessed through the Wikipedia Library also prove notability. And you totally ignored the profiles I shared and the fact that he's been a finalist for all those awards. Per Wikipedia:Notability (people), anyone who has "received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times" is considered to be notable. So even without all the other sources I provided, the award nominations by themselves show his notability as does him winning the Reference and User Services Association Award, which is considered the highest award "honoring academic reference books or media." --SouthernNights (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a follow-up comment, I found a detailed profile of Nevins's work annotating comics in a 2003 edition of The Austin American-Statesman along with addition citations in The Guardian and a number of scholarly works. I went ahead and added these to the article.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two moderately substantial reviews of anthologies compiled by Nevins in WaPo [17][18]; also one more brief recommendation [19]. (An underline got turned into a space in the link posted by SouthernNights; it was however easy to find these with a site search of washingtonpost.com.) Some of the notability here seems to be as an anthologist; I'm not entirely sure of what level of reviews to expect in such a situation, but I think some form of WP:NCREATIVE applies. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With the Forbes situation, you are running into the big Forbes problems. Articles from Forbes staff are absolutely reliable. However, Forbes also has "contributors", which is basically Forbes.com acting as a blog-hosting service. Such articles, which includes the one you are citing, are evaluated as self-published sources rather than Forbes-published (see WP:FORBESCON.) As a self-published source, we cannot use it for information in a WP:BLP, but that may be a separate question from evaluating the notability of the subject. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I wasn't aware of that with Forbes. But it's all good. Even without considering the Forbes review there are a ton of other citations proving this subject's notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Nat for clarifying my concern regarding the Forbes source. Simonm223 (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really hope we don't consider every person nominated for a minor book industry award notable on the basis of nomination alone. That's a recipe to fill Wikipedia with vanity pages for minor fandom influencers. Simonm223 (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While some of the awards listed are reasonably described as "minor", the World Fantasy Award is not. It is one of the three big-league awards in the fantasy/science fiction genre (the others being the Hugo Awards and the Nebula Awards.) The Locus is a significant second-level award, seen as a feeder award to the bigger ones. -- three-time Eisner Award nominee Nat Gertler (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding this. I added this citation and info from it to the article.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI that I've done a rewrite to the article and adding a number of new citations to it. Among the new citations I added not listed earlier in this AfD are a detailed review of his work in The Wall Street Journal (sadly paywalled), a deep-dive review article in Kirkus, and a detailed review in Asimov's Science Fiction that can be read on Archive.org. --SouthernNights (talk) 13:11, 17 June 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 Cignal TV#Colours. ✗plicit 01:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Colours (TV channel)[edit]

Colours (TV channel) (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)

PROD tag removed, lacks significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:56, 14 June 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 13:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pumping Station: One[edit]

Pumping Station: One (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. 16 of this article's 27 citations are from the website of the company itself, and the rest have little to no notability. Dawnbails (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Computing. Dawnbails (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete, this looked promising, but it's in Winnipeg [20]. No sourcing found for this makerspace in Chicago. Oaktree b (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the coverage from the American Bar Association Journal, Columbia Chronicle, Time Out Chicago, Gapers Block, Northwestern University. This might help as well: "Avondale's TARDIS Calls Pumping Station: One Hacker Space Its Home". DNAinfo Chicago. Retrieved 2023-05-30. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see where you're coming from here, but the sources still generally aren't any good. The ABA Journal source is just a brief mention about one of the article's main subjects having spent time with the company. Same thing goes for the Northwestern article. The other sources you mention seem to lack credibility or just noteworthiness in general. Dawnbails (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom, reads like ads. Artem.G (talk) 09:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to discuss the sourcing identified
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria apply. Sourcing fails to meet the criteria for establishing notability. The Avondale article is a blog so fails WP:RS and has no "Independent Content" since it relies entirely on information provided by the company and/or people closely associated with it. Similar issues arise with most of the other references, relying on information provided by the company or people closely associated with the company, failing WP:ORGIND. The remaining are brief mentions with insufficient in-depth information about the company to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 13:04, 20 June 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 Disclaimer (Seether album). Liz Read! Talk! 06:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gasoline (Seether song)[edit]

Gasoline (Seether song) (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 song appears to be non-notable, I could not find any articles online or in print that discuss the song at length individually. Most media mentions seem to be in the context of the broader Disclaimer album and not the song itself. CJ-Moki (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The song hit number 8 on the chart, per [21]. I think that's a RS, we can use it as sourcing. And a reprint of the Modern Rock Chart in a period newspaper [22], bottom left side, about 3/4 of the way down. Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's listed in several newspapers [23]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: As I understand it, these mentions in chart reprints and listings in newspapers count as trivial coverage per WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. CJ-Moki (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I know, but having a charted single is one criteria for NMUSIC. We still have to flesh out the rest of the article. Oaktree b (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: Assuming you're referring to NALBUM criterion 2, The recording has appeared on any country's national music chart, as far as I'm aware, "Gasoline" did not appear on any national music chart, such as the Billboard Hot 100. Please correct me if Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks and Hot Modern Rock Tracks count as national charts. CJ-Moki (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per [24], "may be notable", not that it makes it notable automatically. I suppose you're correct. I'm not opposed to a redirect to the album. I'll amend my !vote above. Oaktree b (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the album as suggested seems the best choice. I can't find anything discussing the song, only proof that it charted at one point. Oaktree b (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeletePer nominator. Not notable song. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 01:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eritrea at the 2024 Summer Olympics[edit]

Eritrea at the 2024 Summer Olympics (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 and WP:TOOSOON, with one source being about Olympic entry standards that doesn't mention Eritrea, and the other being a tweet about an Eritrean cyclist winning the African Cycling Road Race Championships, however it doesn't mention the Olympics. The only thing I could find is this, however it is quite short and is largely interview. A PROD was contested by page creator. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Africa. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it should be draftified, but in any case the names of the competitors need removing as there is no certainty at all that these persons will compete. E.g. the cyclist secured a place for Eritrea in the Olympic race, but Eritrea is free to send any cyclist they want (or none at all), the qualification was for the right to send one person, not individually for that person. Claming that these 6 persons will compete is at best way premature, and at worst just wrong crystal balling. Fram (talk) 07:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fram: It was draftified, but was then reverted by EurekaLott as the article was too old. Draftification until more information is available is probably the best option. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 10:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify per above points. I agree with the WP:TOOSOON but this will probably become relevant once the 2024 Summer Olympics start and would probably be best just to wait until we get coverage. Kline | yes? 14:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have so many of these sorts of articles that are all WP:TOOSOON - there's an entire infobox on them! - and they'll all be notable at some point in the reasonably near future, and we have a number of impatient editors who are willing to start these pages that I'm not sure it's worth anyone's time to bother enforcing WP:TOOSOON for these as a set. I don't want to !vote keep though since the correct decision would be to bulk draftify X at the 2024 Summer Olympics. Just draftifying Eritrea and not say Costa Rica seems inconsistent and incorrect to me. SportingFlyer T·C 16:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify I guess, since there are no sources cited which are about the subject of the article. However the event is due to start in about a year and there will very likely be some sources about the subject soon. This AfD shouldn't be used to delete any version of the article which does have sources. Hut 8.5 17:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Dper *Draftify - per Wikipedia:Too soon Grahaml35 (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Best to wait for 2024 for article to be made.DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 22:50, 17 June 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 14:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baruch Chait[edit]

Baruch Chait (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)

Doesn't appear to pass GNG or NAUTHOR. passing mention in the RS, the other is a blog. Gugrak (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the absence of good sourcing a redirect to Maarava Machon Rubin might be appropriate--thought that article also needs improvement. Drmies (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source of this seems to be Haaretz, based on this translation. Regardless, it is now in the article. Havradim leaf a message 12:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! gidonb (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Coment. If someone can find a second V, IS, RS, SIGCOV source that would be awesome. If not, I suggest merging, rather than deleting or redirecting. gidonb (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep this article about a groundbreaking Jewish musician (who co-created the first folk/Jewish fusion band in 1967) composer, school founding rosh yeshiva/educator and prolific children's book author. The sockpuppet nominator obviously didn't bother to do any checking WP:BEFORE they nominated this. But WP:HEY, I just spent some time adding a few 3rd party reliable sources, and I haven't even gotten to the Hebrew language sources yet, which there has to be regarding this influential Israeli rabbi. I don't agree with Drmies regarding redirecting to Maarava Machon Rubin, nor even with merging there per gidonb. None of the musical or author information would fit well in the school article, and the educational info would not fare well in The Rabbis' Sons. Havradim leaf a message 11:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The "merging there per gidonb" was explicitly if no one would come up with a second valid source, after I had come up with the first. Someone did find more sources, so obviously I support only keep. Per WP:GNG and WP:HEY! gidonb (talk) 14:20, 15 June 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 14:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Hodgson (disambiguation)[edit]

Kate Hodgson (disambiguation) (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 2 entries, hatnotes are sufficient Leschnei (talk) 13:37, 14 June 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 12:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shanta Holdings Limited[edit]

Shanta Holdings Limited (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:ORGCRIT & WP:GNG, Deletion recommended M.parvage (talk) 11:51, 14 June 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 12:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Ellen Howard[edit]

Laura Ellen Howard (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 Irish actress.
One report in a local newspaper does not satisfy WP:GNG, and I can find nothing else.
WP:NACTOR is not satisfied by a minor part in the soap Glenroe and a minor part in Vikings (TV series). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Nothing to indicate that WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR are met. Relatively small role (5 episodes over several years?) in Glenroe and limited local coverage of role in (unreleased/independent?) film do not establish notability under either criteria. The subject's apparent role in Vikings isn't covered in any sources that I can find. Seems pretty clear-cut to me... Guliolopez (talk) 12:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and own search - a clear fail on GNG (and NACTOR, and artist provisions if relevant - this oddly-worded short does seem to be using artiste for actor), and it doesn't even really try to assert notability anyway; this is sub-stub. Very clear case. SeoR (talk) 08:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails NACTOR and GNG. –Davey2010Talk 16:05, 20 June 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 RMS Aquitania. ✗plicit 12:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The ship beautiful[edit]

The ship beautiful (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)

Nickname for RMS Aquitania. Content fork redirected there by 3 different editors (including me), but article creator keeps restoring their page. Time to put an end to this and make a clear statement that this should remain a redirect. Fram (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to RMS Aquitania per nom. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓  11:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
redirect No information that isn't already in the main article exists here. Carpimaps talk to me! 11:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (I'm one of three editor who redirect this before) and have a serious chat with the author, even if he has previously shown that he doesn't listen to any explanation as to why his contributions have been deleted/edited (no notes in the text, non-academic and neutral language and non-standard structured sections in general, as well as several demonstrations of not having read the material already present before adding the information) and just keep restoring them claiming to have "a lot of knowledge". Sira Aspera (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe this could classify for quick erase according to Db-a10 Sira Aspera (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested, perhaps salt this name/article title if it keeps being created. The ship was known by this name and what's here is trivial. I suppose it could have its own article if we had scholarly discussions around the use of the title, but we don't. Oaktree b (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and protect the redirect page to keep it from being restored again. A needless WP:FORK that does not contain any genuine information that is not already covered on the main article on the ship. Rorshacma (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. -Ljleppan (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. Mccapra (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as a WP:CFORK. gidonb (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nominator. Most of the content is duplicated from RMS Aquitania. There are only a couple of sentences about the nickname itself. JIP | Talk 10:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested above. I do not think that a separate article is needed and a redirect makes sense for navigational purposes. Dunarc (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's snowing! gidonb (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please do not delete the article. I have mentioned some extra information, which is not included in the article for the RMS Aquitania. Thanks for the understanding! Ale.ch.geor (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.44.141.202 (talk) [reply]
  • Redirect back to main article as an unnecessary content fork/duplication and protect against recreation. --Kinu t/c 04:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, but not delete -- this seems like a very clearly good redirect title. jp×g 17:28, 18 June 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 12:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dragon Ball Z home video releases[edit]

List of Dragon Ball Z home video releases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Comprehensive list of media available for purchase. Serves as a huge linkfarm for Amazon rather than an encyclopedia. Ajf773 (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has no encyclopedic value. The list is not notable. Carpimaps talk to me! 11:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bensci54 (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Orientls (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Dragon Ball Z episodes, and incorporate what content can be salvaged into that article. While it's clear that there is a lot of information here that may be useful, I don't see a case for standalone notability. jp×g 20:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is nothing to salvage from a link farm of WP:NOTDATA cruft Dronebogus (talk) 10:52, 17 June 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. based on sources shared on the Talk page. Now, how do they get moved into the article itself? Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Machine Tools Factory[edit]

Bangladesh Machine Tools Factory (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)

Doesn't meet WP:ORGCRITE M.parvage (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Xelapilled (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feminista Jones[edit]

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

This article is problematic in several aspects concerning WP:BIO, primarily because the subject, Jones, does not seem to meet the criteria for notability required for an individual to have a dedicated article on Wikipedia.

To begin with, the article's tone is highly promotional and not in line with Wikipedia's objective and neutral tone. This issue is further exacerbated by the inappropriate usage and selection of references throughout the article.

Among the references, the first one [1] includes two articles that offer only a single quote from Jones in each, which is insufficient to establish notability. Moreover, the second source [2] is written by a lifelong friend of the subject, further highlighting the potential for bias. Numerous other references come from local news outlets that merely interview her or mention her tweets and works [3][4][5][6][14][20][22]. As a result, these references fail to qualify as secondary sources, which are necessary for establishing notability according to WP:BIO. Additionally, some of the cited references are self-published articles [11][16], search queries [8][12][13], or portfolios written by Jones herself [15]. Two of these references are dead links [7][9].

Based on my current knowledge of Wikipedia's policies on source usage, particularly for living persons, the majority of these references do not support the subject's notability as per WP:NOTABILITY. Furthermore, the article's reliance on primary sources indicates a potential conflict of interest, undermining the unbiased nature expected of a biographical article on Wikipedia. Therefore, I argue that, in its current state, this article is not suited for inclusion on the platform. Xelapilled (talk) 09:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Jones has been covered by several major English-language press outlets. While I'm generally opposed to using these on Wikipedia at all my understanding is that Wikipedia policy still entails that major English-language press outlets are reliable sources. As such there is a preponderance of reliable sources (such as the Guardian, NYT, Washington Post, etc.) that indicate she is a notable figure in her field. Simonm223 (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree the nom has correctly identified a number of problems with the article, but in terms of notability, she's been quoted often in a number of scholarly papers as a well-known activist. I haven't done a source search to see if she's been significantly covered elsewhere because I'm convinced WP:GNG is met on that alone. Problems with the article can be rectified through clean-up, not through deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 16:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was too quick to call for an AfD because you are right, there are actual sources to support her on Wikipedia, they just aren't in her article. I guess I just didn't really do much besides look at the article in its current state, review the references, and wonder why the article exists (assume it's promotional, because there's a lot of that around right now). In the future I will try to be more careful and add warning templates to highlight that the article may need attention. Is there a way to close my own AfD discussion? Xelapilled (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Xelapilled. There is a way. See WP:CLOSEAFD, "Procedure for non-administrator close (nominator withdrawal)". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:55, 14 June 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 12:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jakub Fúzik[edit]

Jakub Fúzik (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 or WP:SPORTBASIC criteria, no evidence of notability. Per HC Kometa stats, he appeared in only two matches in professional ice hockey (2010–11 season). FromCzech (talk) 09:28, 14 June 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 and redirect‎ to Pandora (daughter of Deucalion). Less Unless (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melera[edit]

Melera (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 of the article is only mentioned in one source, the Clementine Recognitions (10.21), which gives them the briefest of mentions ("and Melera") in a list. The source is clearly anti-pagan, the mention being part of a "black catalogue" of Jupiter's affairs. There exist no secondary sources (to my knowledge) which mention such a figure, and so the article fails WP:GNG. Michael Aurel (talk) 09:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was ‎ speedy keep WP:CSK #2c. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid Halstensen[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ingrid Halstensen (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 journalist and sports anchor. Edit.pdf (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep, just because the sources aren’t in English doesn’t justify deleting the article, refer to WP:GLOBAL. There are 9 independent and reliable sources in the article for only two paragraphs, and every statement about her made in the article is supported by multiple references. It almost definitely passes WP:NBLP.
Here’s an analysis of the sources that are used in the article:
  • Verdens Gang, the most read online newspaper in Norway[1]
  • Nettavisen, one of the most popular news websites in Norway, no reliability issues.[2]
  • Aftenposten, is Norway's largest printed newspaper by circulation.[3]
This feels like it’s going down the same path as the last nomination and I want an explanation from the nominator as to why Ingrid doesn’t pass notability with the amount of references in the article. It almost definitely passes WP:BEFORE (which the nominator should have checked before opening), as you can find way more sources about her by just performing a simple Google search than is actually used in the article(as that would be reference clutter). This should have just been reopened if you wanted a clearer consensus. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓  10:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://medienorge.uib.no/statistikk/medium/avis/253
  2. ^ https://www.tnslistene.no/?list_id=6&week=22&year=2015&report=week&metric=uv
  3. ^ https://medienorge.uib.no/statistikk/medium/avis/190
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Immel[edit]

Garrett Immel (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)

Advertisement only; the article resembles the yellow pages not an Encyclopedia. no Reliable sources Edit.pdf (talk) 08:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • No reliable sigcov found from my search Carpimaps talk to me! 11:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTRESUME. He has had some interesting jobs, but until reliable journalistic sources cover his career in significant ways, he's a working stiff like the rest of us and does not qualify for an encyclopedic article. If anyone is concerned about alternatives to deletion, he could possibly be redirected to his band Ghastly Ones. but I'm not so sure about their notability either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I looked into his band and decided that they are worthy of a deletion discussion as well. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghastly Ones. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:32, 17 June 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. Available sourcing seems to be right on the edge of establishing notability. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Danielle Madison[edit]

Sarah Danielle Madison (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)

Bit-part actor. Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 10:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eastmain: The subject may be notable but I don't think so. If there is coverage, post it up please. scope_creepTalk 22:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. All her obits seem to hang notability on her 7th Heaven character. Graduate student in JP III or the wife of a xyz in House are bit parts, but there is much coverage on her death. [25], this [26] and others all explain about her time on 7th Heaven. Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Searching the internet I couldn't find any in-depth articles on her. But a lot of news articles published about her death. Kinkordada (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kinkordada: What is this "Mere Keep". General the form is either delete, keep, merge, draftify, weak keep, strong keep, weak delete, strong delete? Weak delete is generally not used much. scope_creepTalk 17:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I meant weak keep. My bad. I will update that. Kinkordada (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Going to see if one more relist can bring out a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep: It still needed more citations to allow it to pass WP:GNG. CastJared (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why keep, not draftify or delete? Can you explain in terms of notability? Timothytyy (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a borderline case, but I don't think enough information could be extracted from those sources to make a good encyclopedic entry. Time of India citation cites IMDb, and I question its reliability. Vulture citation is a very short piece. www.usmagazine.com is OK, but it still does not have much substance. Based on these sources all information that we can verify is what films Madison was casted in and basic information like education and birth/death. Carpimaps talk to me! 12:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: All the weak keep votes are still stranded. CastJared (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't quite understand what you mean. Timothytyy (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:BLP policy states Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. Currently the weak-keep arguments don't the WP:THREE references to support a keep. The subject fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 08:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, Ms. Madison is no longer a living person. WP:BLP doesn't apply although our other policies and guidelines still do.
WP:THREE is an essay, not a rule.
-- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 7th Heaven (TV series) - this appears to be her significant role, including as demonstrated by how she is identified in obits, e.g. Vulture (recycles a Chicago Sun-Times obit I have not been able to find), US Magazine ("She was best known, however, for playing Sarah Glass Camden (Barry Watson's love interest) in 7th Heaven from 2002 to 2006", also recycling the Chicago Sun-Times obit); Times of Israel, also recycling the Chicago Sun-Times obit and what her mother said). There appears to be some scholarly attention related to her role in 7th Heaven (MB Cantoral "7th Heaven's Seductive Role in the War on Terror," Quarterly Review of Film and Video, 2022, GScholar preview: "...By enclosing Matt and Sarah Glass's (Sarah Danielle Madison) courtship within the couple's emergent neoconservatism, 7th Heaven mobilized romantic tension to advance the...") and some notice for the portrayal of interfaith marraige [27] in Over the top Judaism: precedents and trends in the depiction of Jewish beliefs and observances in film and television. Her obit in the Chicago Tribune includes quotes from her mother and some information about her early life and education, as well as a brief listing of her roles and appearances on television and in film. There does not appear to be significant independent, reliable, and secondary coverage of her and her career to support a standalone article according to applicable notability guidelines, e.g. WP:BASIC or WP:NACTOR, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. Beccaynr (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 20:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Tari[edit]

Ben Tari (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:NACTOR and WP:BIO. Has only had 1 significant role. LibStar (talk) 05:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Current sources are just passing mentions and other Wikipedia page for some reason. Found no significant coverage of the subject. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While he does only have one significant TV role it is a big, long running one and alternatives such as redirection could have been considered. He does has significant roles on stage productions with multiple reviews making it more than one role for NACTOR. I have updated the article with coverage in articles where he is the prime focus (and named in the titles) which is good for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input on the new sources added by duffbeerforme.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:15, 14 June 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! 07:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of naturalised international footballers[edit]

List of naturalised international footballers (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)

PROD removed without any explanation, but seems totally valid PROD to me. This article conflates 2 things: sporting nationality and people's actual citizenship. And is way less encylopedic than the already existing List of association footballers who have been capped for two senior national teams, which is a well verified list that has sources showing that it meets WP:LISTN. This list article on the other hand has no sources, and no evidence that "naturalised citizens" create a notable list together, rather than just creating confusion about its unclear aim (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Naturalised international footballers) Joseph2302 (talk) 08:02, 14 June 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! 07:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Sarne[edit]

Tanya Sarne (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 page is based on her own bio book - not reliable source; Instagram, blogs and interviews are not helping much either. NO reliable sources Edit.pdf (talk) 07:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I did look to increase the referencing substantially when a BLP flag was raised on 21.04.23, and spent some time looking at online sources for alternatives. I'm not sure what else can be done, certainly without recourse to paywalled news archives which you would not necessarily be able to verify. She has done a number of podcast appearances to promote the book, but I sense that wouldn't satisfy the standards you are seeking.
Sarne is a significant figure in British fashion and in my view it would be better to have a page about her rather than no page. There was no Wiki page before this one was written. Iangreaves (talk) 08:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like there's some discussion of Sarne in Style City: How London Became a Fashion Capital (2009) by Robert O'Byrne. Only one reliable source isn't enough to meet WP:GNG though, and I can't immediately find a second – can anyone else? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. I've luckily regained access to Newsbank, so I have been able to add a few contemporaneous press references to the main article just now. Could someone check and see if this is sufficient? Iangreaves (talk) 09:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the Style City link. I have added a couple of references (though it does seem to rely on cuttings already accessed). Iangreaves (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iangreaves: I've checked several of the newspaper sources, and they seem to be based on interviews with Sarne and are therefore not independent and don't count towards notability. It would be helpful if you could list here the best two or three sources which are all three of independent of Sarne, reliable, and in-depth. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the difficulty here is that we are talking about a fashion designer who worked almost exclusively during the age of intensively PR-controlled coverage, so it is hard to see how an in-depth piece (other than a hatchet job or an obituary) would not rely on interviews with the subject. The tight controlling of an image was completely integral to the outward-facing work of a design company in this era, and fashion journalism is not generally in the habit of writing long company histories or hatchet pieces that would ensure notoriety if not notability. Sarne was not a controversial figure.
    I have used reviews or news reports to substantiate certain elements of the page, such as the buy out of Ghost, the launching of stores, and New York Fashion Week shows. (see notes 32, 38, 45) There are 358 results on Newsbank about her from 1989 onwards. The majority will be either short references (which verify certain claims in her memoir) or interviews. Iangreaves (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Have added a few more news sources to the page. It is now around 50% sources other than the memoir. Iangreaves (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Have also added four citations for her awards. The notes referred to in my 11.28 message are now numbered 32, 39 and 46. Iangreaves (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Fashion, and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: OBE goes a fair way to notability, and the Bookseller source demonstrates it too, amongst other RS. Formatting of refs needs a bit of a tweak. PamD 08:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This from the BBC may help too. PamD 08:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That Bookseller source is just regurgitating the marketing spiel of Sarne's publisher; it's not independent. Loads of people get OBEs - I don't think it's a prestigious enough honour to count towards WP:ANYBIO. Is the BBC source a discussion of Sarne or an interview with her? If the former I think that plus the book I mentioned above would probably hit WP:GNG; if the latter then it's not an independent source and again wouldn't count for notability. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This by Kirby in RS newspaper looks like independent coverage. (Ref 47 at present) PamD 20:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Not Wikipedia's Terry Kirby, but a TK who does seems to be a reference for quite a few articles). PamD 20:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, nice. That's definitely good. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Style City and "Fashion Queen defrocked: Ghost story" are enough to make me think she meets GNG. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Enough coverage for basic notability.--Ipigott (talk) 09:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Available sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG. The OBE, while not on its own sufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO, adds to notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aswin Tripathy[edit]

Aswin Tripathy (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 meeting ANYBIO nor other guidelines for living persons. Edit.pdf (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raktabeej[edit]

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

This article is about an unreleased film, and does not satisfy general notability or film notability. Unreleased films are only notable if production itself satisfies general notability. This article says nothing about production, and reads like advance publicity. This article has already been draftified twice and moved back to article space twice, by User:Skarmory and by User: Tanbiruzzaman. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • When I draftified the article, the article looked the exact same, except it had 0 citations – it now has 8, primarily Bengali-language sources. A few of them are from no consensus or generally unreliable sources, and the rest seem to just be parroting the fact that the film has started production without too much unique content. Meanwhile, in its current state, the article doesn't really have any content past just being a cast and crew listing for a film that is in production. I'm not familiar whatsoever with film notability debates, but I don't think this currently passes WP:GNG, so I'm going to say Delete, or draftify if the creator (or someone else) seems willing to work on it in draftspace despite moving it to mainspace twice. (Also, I removed what I can only assume to have been a spare "Raktabeej" that was above the nomination.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NFF DonaldD23 talk to me 12:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Skarmory Carpimaps talk to me! 12:33, 14 June 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! 05:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Italian and Italian-American superheroes and villains[edit]

List of Italian and Italian-American superheroes and villains (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)

Completely unreferenced, entirely WP:OR. I also doubt the topic passes WP:LISTN. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CROSSCAT. Those two topics have nothing in relation. The provided sources fails to show that this is a "culturally significant phenomenon". Carpimaps talk to me! 12:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unsourced list with no references indicating that this grouping has been discussed as a group or set, thus a failure of WP:LISTN. Searching for sources does not turn up very much on the topic. There's one "Top Ten" churnalism article, and some things on individual characters, but not really anything in reliable sources discussing the overall topic as a grouping. Rorshacma (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The existence of Italian superheroes is not specifically notable or a heavily studied aspect as far as I know. Therefore, it is an example of overlistification. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete why? What even is the point? What are we listing next, redheaded supers? Dronebogus (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I guess according to the title Italian diaspora only live in America…? Dronebogus (talk) 06:25, 18 June 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Pacific 6051[edit]

Southern Pacific 6051 (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)

Lots of excruciating detail, but no indications of notability. Individual locomotives are seldom notable, and those that are almost always are preserved steam locomotives. EMD E9 claims 42 examples are preserved, this locomotive isn't unique and fails GNG. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United States of America. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to California State Railroad Museum#Diesel locomotives. No evidence of independent notability. {{CSRM rolling stock}} probably should go as well - it's almost entirely unviable redlinks. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. From the article: "SP 6051 is the only surviving Southern Pacific passenger-dedicated diesel locomotive". That's uniqueness of a sort. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Uniqueness does not guarantee notability. That claim is not supported by the cited source, and cannot find a reliable source for it (if it's even true - there's a lot of preserved SP diesel locomotives). The article sources are a one-sentence mention in a book, one line in an equipment roster, a self-published non-RS, and a source that does not even mention the locomotive. None of that meets the requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject required by WP:N. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you get particular enough, anything is "unique". I'd appreciate if you at least attempted to provide some sort of policy or guideline-based rationale. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect per Pi.1415926535 Dancing Dollar (let's talk) 15:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't think the assertion about preserved locomotives mostly being steam ones in the nomination is true. It certainly once was true, that the only recognized-as-historic ones were steam. But, if one counts locos in heritage railways, i think it's not true, and it may not be true even if you only considered locomotives preserved in static display at museums. (I also am not sure...i need to go browse the relevant lists.) --Doncram (talk,contribs) 07:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good job misrepresenting my words, I said most notable (for Wikipedia) locomotives are steam locomotives, not that most preserved locomotives are steam. Anyways, this comment is extremely WP:POINTy and I trust it will be disregarded entirely by the closer, especially since you've failed to refute the lack of notability arguments at all. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Trainsandotherthings, I'm sorry that you think I misrepresented anything. In my mind "preserved locomotive" pretty much equals "notable locomotive", and from my editing in lists of preserved locomotives in the U.S. and Canada, I have the impression that there the (preserved) contents of museums and heritage railways includes a whole lot of post-steam ones, perhaps more than there are steam ones (and perhaps more than the set of preserved steam locomotives plus historic notable steam ones that were not preserved). You said "notable locomotives" are almost all steam ones; it is my belief that was certainly true in the past but I think (and I said I am not sure) that may not be true now. This is all sort of an aside, with respect to this specific locomotive, but it does go to the credibility of the nomination. I "!voted" Keep.--Doncram (talk,contribs) 19:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the museum, could be a merge target there as well. Nothing particularly special about this locomotive, technical-wise. Oaktree b (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It's interestingly marginal, but after my BEFORE search, between coverage in two books, the Sacramento Bee blurb, and references in several railroad specific books, including model railroad books, lend me to believe the engine's been commented on enough times in secondary sources to be eligible for an article. I'm a weak because I could probably make an argument that nothing is truly significant coverage in a true "here's a feature article specifically on the locomotive" sense, but significant doesn't necessarily mean long, and there's enough sources here to write an encyclopaedia article on. SportingFlyer T·C 19:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I previously closed this as "keep", but reopened the discussion per request at my talk for another admin to take a look, as I'm short on time this evening. LFaraone 00:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Close enough for a second relist despite a sizable amount of discussion already.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to a "weak keep", but that's the railfan in me speaking. Policy-wise, I'd redirect to the museum. Oaktree b (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources identified. gidonb (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the options should only be to Keep or to Merge. There is substantial info in the article which should not be lost by merely redirecting. Looking at the suggested redirect target, it doesn't look easy to merge substantial information to there, although perhaps a good amount could be put into a large footnote there. I prefer "Keep". --Doncram (talk,contribs) 20:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nomination asserts that the article EMD E9 claims 42 "are preserved". In fact the article was claiming that "42 survive today" which is different. And, "today" was apparently in the year 1997. This edit in 2019 removed mention of the source ("Andrew Toppan's list") and the fact that the list was prepared in 1997. So TODAY, in 2023, 26 years later, we may presume many fewer survive and perhaps even fewer can be said to be preserved (by significant restoration).
I wonder, did the deletion nominator know the claim was bad? In retrospect, their wording in the nom implies doubt. I am restoring that mention of the 1997 Andrew Toppanm (whatever that is), but I also wonder how many other sources were removed in bad editing before and since. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 11:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So TODAY, in 2023, 26 years later, we may presume many fewer survive and perhaps even fewer can be said to be preserved (by significant restoration). That's both speculation and original research. And even if this were the one and only preserved E9 (which it verifiably isn't), that doesn't make it automatically notable. All I said was that EMD E9 claimed 42 survive, or were you expecting me to go and verify the exact number of E9s which are preserved? This locomotive still does not meet GNG. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:26, 17 June 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. While there is certainly not unanimous agreement, there seems to be a rough consensus that the available sourcing for this article (specifically focusing on a power comparison between these two fictional characters, or which character might win a hypothetical battle) is not quite sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. The sources that are most likely to count towards notability are seen by many as relatively low-quality "content farms". And while there is a book available whose title suggests that it covers this topic, a deeper look reveals that the book is primarily about the broader culture differences between eastern vs. western comics, and doesn't focus on a hypothetical battle between the two characters. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Goku vs. Superman[edit]

Goku vs. Superman (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)

Okay, this has been out on the queue for quite a while. Does not appear to have enough in-depth sourcing from a non-in-universe perspective to pass notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 11:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Anime and manga. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, The topic does not seem very notable and its existence might open the floodgates to more articles like it. Crunchyroll doesn't seem very reliable nor should it add to notability. A quick google search proves at least some level of user published content on it. CBR might be reliable, but it seems a lot more interested in clicks than info. ✶Mitch199811✶ 13:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, before writing the article, I made sure that none of the sources I used were deemed to be unreliable on WP:RSN or WP:RSP. Koopinator (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Epic Rap Battles of History episodes#ep41, the status quo before the "biggest shitpost [Koopinator has] ever done on this site." -- Tavix (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think sourcing present in the article justifies inclusion, though not by any means a landslide. IGNScreen RantGamerRanx. The IGN article, if only reading the article title, seems like a run of the mill interview, but there is enough secondary commentary within the article I think for it to be secondary and not just primary. Same situation with GamerRanx (they also say their source is the same IGN article, but they still provide unique secondary commentary and don't simply regurgitate IGN). Screen Rant has consensus for reliability in entertainment[28][29] and is entirely secondary commentary. A lot of it is discussed from a in-universe perspective, but that is simply the byproduct of the subject. While article author does declare the article their biggest shitpost, I don't believe their motivation should be considered when evaluating for deletion. —Sirdog (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like the few reliable sources don't save it from the fact that it is almost exclusively in universe discussion. The only part that might be considered out of universe is that a few news articles covered it and the voice actor was interviewed. ✶Mitch199811✶ 02:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As article creator. I am not aware of any notability guideline saying that sources have to be from an out-universe perspective. The notability guideline I learned about (WP:GNG) said that "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
    To set the record straight, I did call this "my biggest shitpost" (it's definitely silly compared to the stuff I normally write about), but I also sincerely believe this article abides by Wikipedia policy. When I initially made this, I added Category:Philosophical problems and Template:Unsolved because I was having a lot of fun, since then it's been wikified a bit more and I believe it's currently suitable for inclusion Koopinator (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WAF does mention that there should be some level of out-of-universe perspective. I am not convinced that this article passes it due to a lack of anything besides "This person/group commented on the subject". ✶Mitch199811✶ 15:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WAF concerns the presentation of material, not notability. The article does make it clear that Goku and Superman are fictional characters. I think it's also helpful to note that the lead WP:WAF says: "Although this page is not a policy, following the basic notions laid out in this guideline is generally considered good practice." Koopinator (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Incredibly well known and covered debate within fandom, comparisions between Goku and Superman have been done on all aspects of their characters. There has even been a book written about it. It was well known way before the rap battle video so redirecting there makes zero sense. Just because we don't have any other articles like it that doesn't mean its an invalid topic for the encyclopedia.★Trekker (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is certainly an interesting source. Perhaps we could expand this article to a scope of Comparison of Goku and Superman, rather than solely focusing on battle capabilities. We'll see. Koopinator (talk) 09:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to List of Epic Rap Battles of History episodes#ep41. I am not convinced in the slightest it passes WP:GNG (it is sourced mostly to content farm sites that come up more and more often as false notability) but even if it did, it still violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. GNG is not the be all end all, as stated on the page itself. Zero context as to why this hypothetical battle is important in any way. The book about Superman vs Goku is also not about what this article is about, a hypothetical power comparison, but cultural values. The article would technically be about Western vs Eastern comics and not specifically Superman vs Goku, and need to be totally rewritten. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourced mostly to content farms. Nothing significant to preserve. Redirect is unlikely search target and encourages back-door recreation. I know some pretty bizarre topics routinely get high-quality or even featured articles but I’m also of the opinion that “extraordinary claims of notability require extraordinary evidence”. Dronebogus (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Every news site or publication has things they write just to be interest to some customers or to fill pages with. Claiming a reliable source is only reliable when they are writing articles you approve of, is not reasonable. The WP:NOTABILITY guidelines is clearly met here. There are entire articles written about this in multiple reliable sources. Dream Focus 13:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    At the very least, a lot of the websites I don't approve of, I wouldn't in any circumstance. A lot of the sources seem either user-generated or content farms. For example, CBR has tutorials on how to get items or hypotheticals like "Who is Scarlet Spider?" so seems like a content farm. After looking it up, anyone can write for Crunchyroll. The second IGN source is a video about a mod that looks user generated. This is the only one I would flip on if you can prove that someone official posted it. Screenrant is ranking best fights but I can't access the rest of the article so it is pretty hard to judge.
    Using just the ones I have eliminated here and not counting Screenrant, that brings down the amount of sources by 4 (Crunchyroll is used twice). And I only checked those 4. ✶Mitch199811✶ 21:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not saying I disagree with your assessment on notability, but I would like to hear how you determined that anyone can write for Crunchyroll. Link20XX (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      While I still don't think Crunchyroll is super reliable, the thing I looked at was an outdated (broken) form so I am not 100% sure how open they are for applicants. I apologize for the mistake. ✶Mitch199811✶ 18:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The IGN source on the mod was published as an article on the site and also on the site's official YouTube channel. I see nothing to indicate that this source is user-generated content. Koopinator (talk) 07:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      This makes me feel a bit uncertain about the video on one condition: how exclusive is IGN at picking videos. If IGN's YouTube channel is effectively just a smaller video-sharing site, then I have issues. ✶Mitch199811✶ 18:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to epic rap battles. Most of the sources here aren't reliable, or feature only trivial mentions. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete per Zxcvbnm. This is an unencyclopedic argument, of course, and most of the sources aren’t even reliable. Redjedi23 (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think that the subject being cool or lame is a good reason to keep or delete. Here is my evaluation of the sources in the article. I am going to see if they demonstrate notability (cites being Red X symbolN do not mean they're bad, just that they don't contribute to WP:GNG).
1: Green checkmarkY Bonthuys, Darryn (2015-08-04). "Goku vs Superman, who would win? We asked the Super Saiyan himself". Critical Hit. Retrieved 2023-04-20. I am not so sure about this site in 2023. It seems to have a lot of crap on it. However, this article was written by a staff editor whose articles seem to be legitimate. Going back in history, it was previously called Lazygamer which in 2015 had some very normal reporting. This source is devoted entirely to the subject.
2: Gray X symbolNg "Goku Voice Actor Weighs in on Goku vs. Superman Argument". Gameranx. 2022-08-17. Retrieved 2023-04-20. This cites the IGN article.
3: Green checkmarkY Connolly, Spencer (2022-03-24). "The Goku vs Superman Debate Ignores The Saiyans' Dumbest Weakness". ScreenRant. Retrieved 2023-04-20. Written by a staff writer. This source is devoted entirely to the subject. This is not written in-universe (it summarizes a chapter of the manga and then goes on to explain why the author thinks Goku would not win).
4: Green checkmarkY Jones, Mat (2022-08-17). "Could Goku Beat Superman? We Asked Goku's Voice Actor to Settle the Argument". IGN. Retrieved 2023-04-20. I think this is one of the strongest sources; IGN is a real publication, and Mat Jones works for them. This is also entirely about the subject.
5: Gray check markYg Vo, Long (October 2002). "Superman vs. Goku". Wizard magazine. p. 64. Yes, this is in a magazine, but it's a full page magazine feature about the fight. While it does illustrate a fictional scenario in which they fight, it shows the topic was considered at least notable enough for them to spend a page on it. That said, there is not a lot of analysis or commentary, so I don't know if this is the strongest source.
6: Motwani, Nishid (2020-09-20). "Ultra Instinct Goku Vs Superman: Who Would Win?". CBR. Retrieved 2023-04-20.
7: Red X symbolN Luster, Joseph (10 January 2013). "VIDEO: Decisive Death Battle! Goku vs. Superman! WHO WINS?". Crunchyroll. Retrieved 2023-04-20. This is just a Crunchyroll video.
8: Gray check markYg Potvin, James (2022-01-03). "Death Battle!: The 10 Best Fights Ever". ScreenRant. Retrieved 2023-04-20. Inclusion in a list isn't primarily focused on the subject, although it is coverage.
9: Red X symbolN Luster, Joseph (19 May 2014). "VIDEO: Goku Takes on Superman in the Latest "Epic Rap Battle"". Crunchyroll. Retrieved 2023-04-20. This isn't really anything.
10: Red X symbolN DragonBall FighterZ Mod - Superman vs Goku - Mod by Mastaklo - IGN, 2018-04-25, retrieved 2023-06-01 Neither is this.
11: Red X symbolN Brazile, Camden (2021-09-18). "Voter Participation Skyrockets After Adding "Goku or Superman" to Ballot". Hard Drive. Retrieved 2023-04-20. This is a reference to something in the article, but I do not think it affects notability.
There is no requirement that "most of the sources" support notability -- otherwise, we could make an article fail notability by adding more sources (huh?). We only require that enough support notability that it passes GNG; see WP:THREE. jp×g 22:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this article does pass this discussion, do you think that we should get rid of the unreliable or non-notable sources (7, 9, 10)? ✶Mitch199811✶ 02:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. The OP did say "cites being do not mean they're bad, just that they don't contribute to WP:GNG". Koopinator (talk) 06:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ScreenRant is a content farm site, it shouldn't really count towards notability. And "we asked the Super Saiyan himself"? This goes into the realm of fanfiction, Wikipedia is not in the business of being a repository of fiction. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm They're using "Super Saiyan" as a euphemism for the voice actor. Koopinator (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As if that somehow makes it better? It's speculation... from the mouth of the voice actor. The only way this would be admissible is if DC Comics and Akira Toriyama made a special agreement only this actor was privy to, and even if they were, it would be a primary source that doesn't count towards notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a patently unencyclopedic topic, and the referencing brought here doesn't disabuse me of that notion; it's either low-effort churnalism, interviews, or clickbait that focuses on in-universe stuff in violation of FICT that indicates it lacks the real-world importance required (the book suggested as a source, for example, is not covering the topic in the way this article is.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Wikipedia already covers a lot of internet memes that gained notoriety. Borysk5 (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But has the sources proven that it is notable? If this was a well written page with many sources that we all agree are reliable, we wouldn't be here. ✶Mitch199811✶ 17:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The points in favor of, say, the SR source are:
  • A reliable source
  • Editorially independent
  • Written by a staff writer
  • Primarily devoted to the topic
The points against it seem to be:
  • Someone at AfD thinks it is silly
jp×g 20:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"It's silly" is a valid argument if the article cannot have context for why it should be taken seriously. That is the basis behind WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The article does not claim anywhere that the question of Goku vs. Superman is anything more than a triviality, and simply because sources have written about it doesn't make it suitable for inclusion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pure, unmitigated WP:SYNTH --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a new claim. What makes you think this is WP:SYNTH? Koopinator (talk) 06:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I don't agree that it's SYNTH. Failing WP:INDISCRIMINATE, almost certainly, failing WP:GNG, probably, but the article does not draw any conclusions not stated in the sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Content farm sources should not be used to establish notability, and the edit summary during the creation of the article suggests that the page creator had some idea of this. Though I do wonder if there are sources out there for the more general concept of "who would win in a fight", which is a fairly popular idea in popular culture and internet culture. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It would seem to me that there is some circularity to the reasoning that the topic is stupid because the sources are bad, and the sources are bad because they're reporting about something as stupid as this, which we know is stupid because it's being reported on by sources this bad, which we know are bad because... jp×g 03:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the sourcing is bad because it is bad. A lot of it is content farming or squinting to make sources look like they’re serious critical analysis and not tongue-in-cheek interviews and what is basically fan fiction. Dronebogus (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient. Star Mississippi 20:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pankaj Choudhary (professor)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Pankaj Choudhary (professor) (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)

Previous AfD resulted in soft delete, and it was reconstituted. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Onel5969 TT me 12:45, 20 May 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.WorldCat, Choudhary on WorldCat Entities Archived from the original
2. Library of Congress, Pankaj Choudhary's publications on Library of Congress that mentioned its affiliation, association, and source that satisfy WP:NPROF
3. Hindustan Times, Campaign launched to manage litter caused by cigarette butts]: a campaign launched by Choudhary on World Cleanup Day.
4. Caspian Week 2020 Program: Choudhary was invited speaker and spoke on 'Energy transition in the Greater Caspian Region: development and emissions' and 'SDG in the health and wellness industry' in a prestigious Caspian Week World conference in Geneva, Switzerland.
5. The World Cleanup Day, World Cleanup Day India: World Cleanup Day organisation independently covered Choudhary's work
6. भाजपा राष्ट्रीय अध्यक्ष श्री @JPNadda जी की सहमति से भाजपा ओबीसी मोर्चा में प्रो0 पंकज चौधरी को राष्ट्रीय रिसर्च एवं पॉलिसी का प्रभारी बनाया गया है। BJP's official Twitter handle anounced Choudhary as a president of OBC Morcha.
8. World Clean Up Day 2022: जश्न मनाने छात्र और युवा आए एक साथ, प्रोफेसर पंकज चौधरी ने की Lets Do It India की स्थापना
7. Professor Pankaj Choudhary on his book ‘A Story of India’s Missing Women’: Pankaj Choudhary's book review "Female foeticide: A Story of India's Missing Women" by Aman Gaur from PinkCity post. Passes WP:BASIC.
8.Businessworld, Prof. Pankaj Choudhary Awarded With SEEP At The International Clean World Academy In Tallin: a news from reliable website independently covered about Pankaj Choudhary. Passes WP:GNG. Rath Butcher (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WorldCat and LOC listings merely indicate that someone has published something. That's not enough for WP:PROF, not by a long shot. The World Cleanup Day website is just a blurb from Let's Do It! India talking about themselves (We have a strong presence in 24 Indian states, etc.). XOR'easter (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject is connected and elected to a post of the Party which is ruling Central Govt of India for last 9 years and looking into news articles i can say, He is the founder of the Let's Do It! India and also awarded by Alar Karis. He is also an Associate Professor in Delhi University, which is really a notable thing. He has been a Speaker at the World Economic Forum. He is notable as an Environment Activist. The subject passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC as an environmentalist. He is working and worked as a researcher at many places as mentioned in the article. Yasal Shahid (talk) 05:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's very, very rare for associate professors at any university to be notable by virtue of their academic achievements. Minor party officials generally aren't notable either, regardless of their party. XOR'easter (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not found for WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, He does not pass WP:NPROF, but As an environmentalist the subject is meeting WP:PEOPLE. Rath Butcher (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being an environmentalist, received notable award for his work, the subject meets WP:NPEOPLE. Rath Butcher (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article: Good quality content generation is always a difficult task especially there are numerous unsung heroes get no prominence due to lack of secondary sources or difficult to find such credible sources. Here, as we can see, this page related to the person seems to good acedemic reputation and is a budding environmentalist cum lawyer. His work got recognised at several places of high reputation like Princeton University and also by the Government of Estonia. He is also a founder of Environmental organization which is doing decent work.
I think we need to protect this page so that other youths get inspired from him and do some good for the environment. However, I would suggest to enrich the content with better language, its linkages for the public good. Ashishsuman14 (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of which makes them wiki-notable. Wiki isn't to promote up-and-coming people, we need reliable sources discussing them at length. Oaktree b (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does not meet the requirements laid out in WP:NPROF. Did WP:BEFORE including a Google search and couldn't find anything major about him. Articles about him in some news outlets don't have an author or come from questionable sources. Was admitted to the Professional Fellows Program but that's not a major award, it's a program out of the US State Department. Let's check the criteria from NPROF and see if they pass.
  1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.: Not that can be determined
  2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.: Only has a minor award given at a conference in Estonia.
  3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).: Claims to be a "directed studies fellow", I googled this title and he is the only person who comes up. So it's either the most selective honor ever given or it's not important.
  4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.: Was unable to find any of his published work in academic journals.
  5. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.: Not a named chair
  6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.: Not an admin of a major academic institution or society.
  7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.: Can't find anything
  8. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.: Not a chief editor of any journal.

Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 06:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The subject seems to meet the Notability in the English Wikipedia. There are references backing up the content on this page, this is to say that content are verifiable according to Wikipedia:Verifiability. Although I think this project can be elaborated and restructured by anyone from the Wikipedia community in order to improve the quality of the page. Thanks Onosco23 (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The content of the subject has great notability and Citations. The content is acceptable from Wikipedia Rules. Santhan Akkulu — Preceding undated comment added 10:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments to closing admin. We have a good number of established editors (including myself) making policy-based arguments for deletion or redirection. We have Epcc12345 making a policy-based argument for keep. We have a large number of keep !votes coming from accounts that leave me with concerns about possible WP:CANVASing: one such paraphrases the rationale of Epcc12345 very closely, others seem to confuse WP:V with WP:GNG. These accounts generally have around 50 edits, and I don't feel comfortable tagging as WP:SPAs, so I am leaving this comment instead. Please also see the discussion's talk page for an additional intended keep !vote. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I discovered a few news sources that may pass WP:SIGCOV to justify its GNG criteria. 1 from Rajasthan Patrika, 2 from Republic TV, 3 from Zee News. That's all your honour. 122.177.105.251 (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Republic TV has been deprecated and is considered an unreliable source. Patrika is routine coverage of an awareness campaign and focuses more on his organization, 'Let's Do It India,' than on him. Zee News's article is a "Conversation", thus it as a primary source. The byline of the article is unclear, as it states "Zee Media Bureau", suggesting that it may be a paid article or press release-type piece. US-Verified (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist for consideration of the additional sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - With the sources provided Above, he qualifies for WP:Basic and strongly notable.103.47.134.15 (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to List of Dead or Alive characters. Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ayane (Dead or Alive)[edit]

Ayane (Dead or Alive) (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)

Holy cow this article. Alright. So a lot of what was there was citing things related to the games a whole, or citing for things they didn't even actually *say*. What's left is a WP:REFBOMB of listicles, with only Sterling's statements offering any actual commentary about her, and that's mostly about the fact she's 14 in a game and thoughts on Japan's portrayal of teen women. I actually dug through to see if there was any real meat elsewhere but no, she gets passing mentions in books, magazine and scholar, mainly alongside other sexualized women in a list or that she appears in the series. Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Article contains mostly listicles that amount to WP:REFBOMBING. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 04:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. On my own research, I found the same as KFM did. Doesn't make me feel good to say that though, as I feel Ayane SHOULD be notable, but doesn't appear to be. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, she should. I haven't found much on her either, actually, which is pretty shocking, considering her popularity (plus the controversy surrounding her age). She's probably the second (or third, depending on where Ryu Hayabusa fits in) character most people think of when they think of DOA, behind Kasumi herself. Look at all the coverage Sarah Bryant has gotten. You would think Ayane would get similar treatment. Perhaps she had more coverage at one point in time, but there's been so many sites that have shut down over the years, some of which have no archives to back them up. This is definitely one article that is worth another look in the future, should it get merged, which it looks like it will. MoonJet (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Dead or Alive characters only found some very minor passing mentions in an archives search, nothing that meets GNG. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge she’s marginally more notable than the rest of DoA’s roster but one source doesn’t cut it. Dronebogus (talk) 00:20, 15 June 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! 03:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Berk Tarakçıoğlu[edit]

Berk Tarakçıoğlu (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)

Berk Tarakçıoğlu does not satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:57, 14 June 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. after considerable work done to improve this article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Harman[edit]

Andrew Harman (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 author. Article relies on a single unreliable source. UtherSRG (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found a ton of reviews proving notability and his works were published by a major UK press. For his Firkin series of novels, there are reviews of the various books in Vector (in issues 174, 180, 181, 182, and 186), Interzone (in issues 75 and 89, both from the early 1990s) Locus (in issue 400 from May 1994) and Science Fiction Chronicle (in issue 187 December 1995-January 1996). In addition, his other novels are also reviewed in these places. For example, The Scrying Game was reviewed in Locus issue 422 from March 1996, in Science Fiction Chronicle issue 189 from May/June 1996 and in Vector issue 188. He's also mentioned in Encyclopedia of Fantasy and Horror Fiction by Don D'Ammassa and Fantasy of the 20th century: An Illustrated History by Randy Broecker along with having a small entry in Fantasy: The Definitive Illustrated Guide and a detailed two-page entry in the St. James Guide to Fantasy Writers. Granted, some of these reviews are very cruel and cutting -- the one in Interzone 75 states "There is hardly a word in The Sorcerer's Appendix by Andrew Harman which fails to grate. Harman's recipe for humour is to invent a large number of very stupid characters, and show them behaving in very stupid ways, time after time. He then explains to the reader what has transpired, repeating much of it." But the reviews and other citations still exist and provide enough reliable and significant secondary sources to prove notability for creative professionals --SouthernNights (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have updated the article with some of the citations mentioned above plus others I found, such as an entry for him in the Waterstone's Guide to Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:45, 14 June 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Hunter[edit]

Greg Hunter (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 and WP:BLP. No WP:SIGCOV to be found. Article was likely made by either subject himself or someone close to him. Three of the five sources in the article are Discogs, which is unreliable. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, found 0 reliable sources talking about him. Other wikis that have him also have 0 reliable sources. Appears to be a nonnotable person who lacks any significant coverage whatsoever. Heart (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Tricky one. Not a massive amount of coverage and the current article is not good. But there are some sources including bios of him and his groups:
  1. Collaboration with The Egg (band) has these sources: God is in the TV; Essentially Pop, Decoded Mag
  2. ArtistInfo Bio - reliability of source questionable - looks crowdsourced.
  3. Bio of Hunter's band Cloudcycle on Resident Advisor
  4. Song review Resident Advisor again: Butterfly Studios is also where he met Greg Hunter, AKA Dubsahara, a sound engineer on The Orb's first two albums. Hunter mastered Temple Of Sonic Peace and co-wrote "Shantiman (Basoa Dub)," where his guitar and synth programming, coupled with Sangita's ambient dub, are placed beautifully and intricately alongside the vocals of Haradhan Das Baul
  5. interview - but seems an advert promo for hitnmix
  6. Bio on a Japanese clubbing site - includes link to international tour of Japan
  7. Allmusic has a credits page but no bio: [41]
  8. As Dubsahara, he has a collaboration project with notable musician Simon Posford called Dub Trees: [42]; [43]; [44]
Hunter very much exists, appears to have an extensive career well over 20 years working with notable musicians, and has attained some notability as a non-mainstream 'counter culture' artist in his own right including touring internationally - whether sufficient for WP remains to be seen. If kept article will need work. ResonantDistortion 16:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more evaluation based on recent sources found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep on WP:MUSICBIO. Resident Advisor is a WP:EMRS and has critical and bio coverage. The collaboration with the Egg has some critical review&coverage which appears independent. The Clubberia Bio looks independent and has evidence of international touring. I will intend to improve the article and add sources if it is kept. ResonantDistortion 06:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SWinxy (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I'm not convinced the sources are enough for notability. The Egg collaboration is probably the strongest point, but that's still not much. Oaktree b (talk) 13:41, 14 June 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 00:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All Seasons Place, Penang[edit]

All Seasons Place, Penang (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 shopping centre that does not have coverage to meet GNG. One source merely confirms a bus runs to the centre, another source confirms the statement "a flea market opens within the mall every weekend, offering apparel at discounted prices". LibStar (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Malaysia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article from The Star is the best source. The Time Out article is short, but talks both about the mall and the flea market. Size seems to be a factor in the notability of shopping malls, and this one is fairly large.

The corresponding article in Malay seems top be based on this one (or vice versa), but the list of tenants at ms:All_Seasons_Place may be more current. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:33, 14 June 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Voices / Outside Voices[edit]

Inside Voices / Outside Voices (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)

BLAR was reverted but I stand by my reasoning. Present sources, including the two added since my redirect, are mostly unreliable and those that aren't still don't provide much evidence of notability. My search didn't turn up anything else that did either, hence the redirect to K.Flay#2021–2022: Inside Voices / Outside Voices which I think should be reinstated. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!
I am the primary author of the page in question.
Personally, I don’t believe that the citations are unreliable.
I do understand why you removed my article Mono (K.Flay album); I will republish the article later this year when the album comes out along with citations and more information.
However, this page has been published for months without any warnings about the sources and I just don’t see what the problem is.
What leads you to believe that any of the page’s citations are untrustworthy? And why do you think the album isn’t relevant enough to have its own page?
Thanks,
SaltieChips SaltieChips (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Agree that the current sourcing is pretty weak, though I was able to find a little more that helps:
  1. https://www.nme.com/news/music/k-flay-drops-exhilarating-new-ep-outside-voices-3100480
  2. https://www.thelineofbestfit.com/reviews/albums/k-flay-inside-voices-ep-review
  3. https://americansongwriter.com/k-flay-lets-the-superego-take-over-for-new-ep-outside-voices/
All three are from WP:RSMUSIC. I found one from the website "Bring the Noise" too that I thought we considered reliable, but it's not at RSMUSIC so I could be mistaken. Sergecross73 msg me 01:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Saw those in my search. NME looks very press release-based and American Songwriter seems to be mostly interview. The Line of Best Fit is good but that only brings us to one source. Not sure I'm familiar with Bring the Noise so I can't speak to its reliability, but perhaps it's worth bringing up at WT:ALBUMS in case your memory was serving you well. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I agree with that assessment of American Songwriter though. There's plenty of quotes, sure, but it's lengthy and not in interview format. Sergecross73 msg me 02:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simple mentions or quotes don't help notability. There isn't much of anything beyond these (or beyond primary sources) for this person. I can't find any extensive coverage of them. Oaktree b (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The term is used aplenty in scholarly journals dealing with childhood education, but I can't find mention of either the singer or the musical album in question. Oaktree b (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How closely did you review and search for things? Even the nominator did better than "I can't seem to find anything". And even beyond that, there's no reason to not at least redirect it. There's no implausibility of such a search term. (If there is, you certainly didn't articulate it.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I clicked on the links given in the deletion template, all the terms that came up were related to raising children. I haven't spent hours and hours digging out sources from the void for this article however. Oaktree b (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for confirming my suspicions at least. Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "Alternative Press" is tagged as green/reliable by the source bot, three are red/unreliable, the rest have no opinion on notability, per the bot. I'm still not seeing notability, and no further extensive sourcing has been added or mentioned in this discussion. Oaktree b (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the third party reliable sources I presented above. Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep, basically per User:Sergecross73. I find the sources sufficient, and have no problem with NME as a source based on its editorial policies. BD2412 T 21:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of the sources listed above (I may be a bit biased since I wrote the article). SaltieChips | Message me 2:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
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 00:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ogayslabe[edit]

Ogayslabe (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 moved this from the Wikipedia space to draft but it was moved back. Moved to article space by me subsequently.

Minor Somali sub-clan. Basically unsourced except for the agreement with the British and for the notable member. I removed two links the Wikiwand version of Warsangeli as they are copies of our article. Perhaps merge to one of the major clans. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Harti, though this topic isn't currently mentioned there. Strictly speaking (WP:V; WP:LC etc.), I'm not sure there's any content to merge. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. & FWIW/FYI, I've not actively watched Category:Somali clans articles for a while now, but the lengthy subclan/lineage listing is a longstanding issue. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Somalia/Archive 1#Clan lineage (and that was 2009!). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - most of the article is unsourced so there isn't anything worth merging and there is no evidence whatsoever that this topic meets WP:GNG. It violates WP:NOR, a Wikipedia policy. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the article is worth publishing, since it is new information that is not existed, and readers are interested in it. Oali24331 (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:28, 14 June 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 00:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leopold Z. Goldstein[edit]

Leopold Z. Goldstein (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)

NN bio - fails WP:NPROF UtherSRG (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Has about 10 papers in Pubmed, using the sourcing given in the article. Would appear notable, but wow it needs a TNT or at least a rewrite.
Oaktree b (talk) 01:38, 14 June 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 00:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ICE-CREAM (Podcast)[edit]

ICE-CREAM (Podcast) (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 NWEB. Non-notable podcast without reliable sources and significant coverage. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Most of the sourcing is from youtube and I can't find anything about this. Plenty of hits on ice cream the food, nothing about the podcast. Weak PROMO perhaps. "Sodas and telepaths" is flagged a suspect by the source bot as well. Oaktree b (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Internet. Skynxnex (talk) 03:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cannot find in-depth coverage of this podcast. Pichpich (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, no significant coverage, and all the sources in the article are primary. Artem.G (talk) 11:11, 15 June 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article. If an article is written on the musical group he participated in, feel free to Merge the sourced content of this article and redirect this page to that of the band. Liz Read! Talk! 01:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dany Engobo[edit]

Dany Engobo (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)

NN musician, fails WP:MUSICBIO. UtherSRG (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input on Meanderingbartender's findings.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A .fr Google website search doesn't turn up much [46] mentioned about another person during Eurovision in 2010. He has a listing at BNF (the French National Library), so I think he's released a few records/CDs'. I'll keep digging. Oaktree b (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He appears to have been making music as part of "Les Coeurs Brises" before 1991, then alone in the late 90's/early 2000s, so likely exists in paper sources. He's mentioned in this book [47], which Google doesn't have much of beyond a snippet view; it's published in the Congo, so I doubt it will be in many libraries. Oaktree b (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I think his notability hangs on MUSIC #7 in particular. He created a new musical style/dance as described in the article. And about a paragraph in this book [48], briefly talking about him, and this [49], mentioned in an African cultural encyclopedia. Oaktree b (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Did on search on BNF Gallica, hoping for newspapers, nothing turns up [50]. Appears he was big in Africa in the pre-internet era, so not much has been digitized from that part of the planet and time. Oaktree b (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. I'm closing this discussion as "Delete". I was persuaded by those arguing that this was a local event and, to be honest, I've deleted plenty of articles on local elections in Western countries. I'm also influenced by the fact that despite claims, no further editing has occurred on this article since this nomination. If sources were out there to support notabilty, I think they would have been located over the past 3 weeks that this AFD has been open. Liz Read! Talk! 00:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Komae city assembly election[edit]

2007 Komae city assembly election (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)

Lists aside, this article consists of one (1) sentence, of ten words. I don't question either that Komae-shi (a western suburb of Tokyo) exists, or that it held an election in 2007; however, there's no indication that the election wasn't utterly routine, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Hoary (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

よ！ Dekimasu, I'm willing to believe that one or more among 2007 Komae city assembly election, 1909 Forfarshire by-election or 1945 Fremantle by-election and 1984 Anchorage mayoral election was not humdrum, whether because it had lasting consequences or for some other reason. None of the four stubs suggests to me that the election was anything but humdrum. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information that's humdrum but that later could conceivably be shown to deviate from the humdrum in some way. Perhaps elections are a little like actors: there are huge numbers of the latter, and those who are still emerging don't get articles on the strength of their looks or the fervidness of their (few) proponents; rather, we wait till their notability is clearly apparent. -- Hoary (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The closest page to the AfD’d page in Japanese, leaving a link to the AfD’d page for more information. I am pretty sure these minor elections usually belongs in Japanese Wikipedias as it may be more “notable”? Overall Agreeing to the deletion if it ever happens, most likely not the thing to make an independent page about. Sorry for the crappy grammar, but I hope you can somehow understand what I am trying to point out. AlphaBetaGammsh (talk) 06:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Elections are inherently notable in nature, and as pointed out by @Dekimasu, english speaking countries have plenty of similar articles. There's a collection of results here already, and perhaps in the future the article will be further improved by the providence of related context. However until that point, users on Wikipedia will in the mean time be able to readily access results that would be otherwise (relatively) inaccessible. It's useful to keep the article in it's base form, IMO. Alexcs114 (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - while there could be circumstances where we may not want to assume notability of an election (e.g. historical elections that may not have actually taken place, potentially sham elections during conditions of political instability in regions with no independent press etc.) but none of those apply here. signed, Rosguill talk 03:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'll quote the article Tokyo: "Since 2001, Tokyo consists of 62 municipalities: 23 special wards, 26 cities, 5 towns and 8 villages." Komae is one of the "cities". Pleasant though they are, the "towns" and "villages" have minor population or other significance; let's say that Komae is not one sixty-second but instead all of one fiftieth of Tokyo. (Actually its population is just 2.2 thousandths of that of Tokyo.) It is of course imaginable that what was expected to be a humdrum election instead had remarkable significance (an upset for the overly complacent incumbent, launching or terminating a remarkable political career, Santos-scale fraudulence, etc). But none has been asserted for this election. The article 2007 Japanese unified local elections (feeble, but on a subject whose notability I don't question) mentions a lot of the individual elections; but my browser (Firefox) finds no appearance within it of the string Komae. For that matter, despite its considerable bulk, the article ja:第16回統一地方選挙 (the Japanese-language equivalent of 2007 Japanese unified local elections) doesn't mention 狛江 (Komae). The article 2007 Komae city assembly election is very little more than an assemblage of lists of names; none of these names is blue-linked. Alexcs114 writes: "perhaps in the future the article will be further improved by the providence of related context". Yes, perhaps it will! Rather as it may be discovered that a teapot is orbiting the Sun. -- Hoary (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AQU, it is a fact that the article may be improved. Many of our best articles once looked like stubs such as this before being improved by caring editors. Alexcs114 (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Alexcs114, it's a fact that ... all sorts of things may be such-and-such. (It's a fact that George Santos may be a decent, upstanding, but serially/tragically misunderstood fellow, et cetera et cetera.) Perhaps I'm an uncaring editor, but I do flatter myself that I'm at least open-minded. Would you or Rosguill (or anyone) care to make one or two tiny edits to this article, suggesting that the election didn't merely have the potential for significance but actually did have some significance? -- Hoary (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will improve the article tommorow if/when I find the time, though I've got a lot going on tommorow IRL and am not the best educated on Japanese elections.
    That being said:
    I wasn't trying to suggest that the article had potential for significance - I believe any election (including this one) is significant in it's own right, though that may not be the most widely accepted view on wikipedia. After all, why can't we house and readily provide data on election results for all parts of the world irregardless of size? Such things are the foundational structure of many governments, and having free and easy access to them is important. It's often hard to find historical results for local elections, having them readily available on wikipedia is a net plus - but rather that the article had potential for improvement.
    With regard to the significance issue, if the page remains a stub, maybe the page could be merged into a subcategory on Komae, Tokyo for election results? Alexcs114 (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was actually going to add some stuff to the article today, but I can't read Japanese and couldn't find any english sources - any advice on that? You seem to be a far more experienced editor than I, lol Alexcs114 (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand the notion of merging into a subcategory on/of an article; and suppose that it's the result of some kind of typo. Category:Komae, Tokyo does exist, but (unsurprisingly) it's very sparse: it has only one subcategory (Category:People from Komae, Tokyo), and no article such as "Electoral history of Komae, Tokyo". The article under discussion is the sole article devoted to a Komae election. (If it's of interest, ja:Category:狛江市 has more subcategories, but, whether subcategory or article, nothing covering this.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    meant subcategory to mean "paragraph of an article", not a literal category. Like, the main Komae, Tokyoarticle could perhaps have this article merged into it? On second thought though, that could bulk up the article unnecessarily. Alexcs114 (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an election of a municipality with over 80,000 residents, this has inherent notability. Fulmard (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I don't see anything about the inherent notability of elections in either WP:N or Wikipedia:Notability (events)]. What am I missing? Comment If a local election has "inherent notability", then I'd imagine that its successors have as well. But nobody has bothered to write up any of these, either in en:WP or in ja:WP. Is anyone here volunteering to do so? Here's a list of links to info about Komae's elections. An example is this one, of 2019. People interested can look there. Of course, that website may disappear; but the Wayback Machine has the page. Yes, both the website and the Wayback Machine may disappear: I'd then look in the archives of one or other of the national/Tokyo newspapers. -- Hoary (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Low-level municipal elections are not presumed notable, and I'm honestly a bit surprised to see editors I respect arguing that. The relevant guideline, WP:NEVENT, calls for coverage that's both geographically and temporally broad; no one has been able to find anything approaching that level of sourcing, and my search came up empty. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a database for election results. And I'm not convinced that applying these policies and guidelines would present a systemic-bias issue: when articles about comparable local-level elections in the West appear at AfD, the result is usually delete, and often quite uncontroversially ([51], [52], and [53] are a few I've !voted in). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The election could indeed be notable, but at present there's no evidence that it is. The problem is the article's lack of context — it is basically data without encyclopedic content. Reliable sources need to be found and added which comment on the election either before and/or after the results. The problem is that sources will more than likely be in Japanese and not readily found by most of us contributing our opinions here. 16 years have elapsed without any context being added so I take on board the nominator's point it appears unlikely any will be. Also, this article seems to be a one-off i.e. not part of a series of such elections. Articles on more recent elections have either not been created or have been subsequently deleted. Rupples (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion of whether there is or is not a substantial quantity of reliable source material available about this subject would be very helpful in determining the outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:09, 14 June 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 00:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mone Wamowe[edit]

Mone Wamowe (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)

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, thus failing WP:GNG. He did score twice in a game against Fiji, leading to a number of passing mentions to this effect, but does not satisfy notability requirements. JTtheOG (talk) 00:08, 14 June 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 00:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Habsburg-Lothringen[edit]

Markus Habsburg-Lothringen (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 don't think the page meets the notability criteria Wikipedia:Notability_(people) as all the article discusses is his relationship to other people and two awards that are not significant or well known D1551D3N7 (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and Austria. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article could be expanded from the versions in other languages, and honorary citizenship of a city is probably notable. Also, see "Kaiservilla Bad Ischl: Habsburgs Nachfolger kämpfen mit dem Erhalt ihres Erbes". Kleine Zeitung (in German). 2022-12-18. Retrieved 2023-06-04. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt it: the article is almost entirely about the castle that his family used to own personally, but which they passed into a trust managed by his son-in-law; the article talks extensively about the state of decay of the palace, and its dire finances, but very little about the gentleman himself (and where it does, it's very much an interview). I have no strong feelings either way, but it seems to me that a mention at Kaiservilla is probably enough. Elemimele (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think I will change my earlier comment to Keep. In addition to my earlier points, he is listed in the Almanach de Gotha. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, unless he gets any claim for noatbility other than being the descendent of someone notable, or living in some notable person's former palace. Or someone pointing to some "all (former?) nobles are notable" policy - Nabla (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Cannot find anything advancing notability and nobility is not inherited. An Archduke or being the eleventh child, or living in a notable ancestry castle, does not add to the "presumption" of being notable. I have not heard of being listed in the Almanach de Gotha as ensuring notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not sure he's notable alone, most articles seem to be in relation to the castle where he lives [54] I think talks about the castle. Perhaps a redirect or selective merge to an article on the castle. Oaktree b (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This discussion is relisted a second time and still no valid reason is given as to why he is notable. Every point of notability raised here is derived from the building he lives in or from his ancestors. In addition, being mentioned in a book is not a reason for notability. Furthermore, the last somewhat reliable edition of Gotha was published a year before his birth. I doubt very much that he is mentioned there. Anything else that was published afterwards (with or without the official name rights) by other publishers, or even self-published, is poorly edited, full of errors, and anything but WP:NPOV. -- Theoreticalmawi (talk) 14:36, 17 June 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_June_14&oldid=1161512128"