Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 23 June 25 >

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 merge‎ to George Washington University. Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington University Graduate School of Education and Human Development[edit]

George Washington University Graduate School of Education and Human Development (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] Wozal (talk) 23:45, 24 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. Just an aside, the the Delete decision in that other AFD mentioned seems like it could be contested at Deletion Review. Liz Read! Talk! 01:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional Scots[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of fictional Scots (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 any benefit to having a list for this topic, especially the horribly arbitrary “Scots who were or maybe were real but have appeared in fiction” section. “Scottish people in fiction and legend” is likely a notable topic but lists are never good ways to discuss abstract things educationally. Dronebogus (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as far too broad to be useful. You could include the characters from every novel, TV series, movie, etc. set in Scotland, just to begin with. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Lists, and Scotland. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs more categorization by media, as there are fantasy and sci-fi characters mixed in with ones from standard fiction. However, the basis behind the list is sound, and lists and categories do not necessarily rule each other out. WP:SURMOUNTABLE applies - deletion is not cleanup, which is what this article needs. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I have some sympathy for the idea behind the article, I am not sure this can ever be a useful list given the sheer numbers of fictional Scots in centuries of literature and other forms of fiction. Dunarc (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Only notable entries are listed of course. Far more information available in a navigational list than the category for this. Category:Fictional Scottish people Dream Focus 14:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ironically, these lists are great for deletionists. As our Categories guideline notes:
An embedded list, one incorporated into an article on a topic, can include entries which are not sufficiently notable to deserve their own articles, and yet may yet be sufficiently notable to incorporate into the list. Furthermore, since the notability threshold for a mention is less than that for a whole article, you can easily add a mention to a list within an article, without having to make the judgment call on notability which you would need to make if you were to add a whole article—if someone else feels that it is notable enough, they can always linkify the mention and create an article anyway.
For now, this list is reasonable in length. If it gets too long in the future, it can be broken up into multiple lists (List of fictional Scots in books, List of fictional Scots in film, etc.)
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The nominator didn't really cite any rules here to justify the deletion.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. But the deletion rationale boils down to WP:WEDONTNEEDIT which is not a strong argument for deleting an article. More connection to policy would help both sides be more convincing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was asked to cite more actual rules, so WP:MILL per Clarityfiend (there’s lots and lots of works set in Scotland for starters) WP:NOTDIR, and WP:TNT. Dronebogus (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, this violates WP:SALAT as "too broad in scope". (That's why there are no other "List of fictional [random nationality] characters".) Clarityfiend (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have many arrangements of information about aspects of cultural history, and this seems like a perfectly fine addition to that catalog. BD2412 T 01:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think there's any question that this meets LISTN, in that fictional treatments of Scottish people are a widely discussed topic (here's a whole book). The lack of similar lists is largely the consequence of the excesses of deletionists of the past, e.g. the list of fictional New Zealanders was deleted despite what can only be described as a total lack of consensus. As to other authorities cited above, the grotesque elitism of the MILL essay has thankfully never become Wikipedia policy, the TNT essay would require an actual showing that the list has problems that are unfixable, and WP:NOTDIR contains no applicable provisions that I can identify. -- Visviva (talk) 17:56, 25 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 among participants to Keep this article. There is room for improvment, to be sure, and I encourage interested editors to take the feedback in this discussion and work on the article. Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Asian superheroes[edit]

List of Asian superheroes (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)

Wildly indiscriminate. Asia is a HUGE place (the biggest continent on Earth, obviously) with countless unrelated cultures, and that’s not even getting into diaspora. There is no reason to lump every super from, or with ancestry from, Asia into a giant list. Dronebogus (talk) 09:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Largely unsourced but that problem might be solvable if the whole concept wasn't overbroad and borderline-incoherent in the first place. Best case scenario, this would generate intractable debates about who counts as Asian. Worst case scenario, which the article is close to, is that it lies unmaintained and filled with unverifiable cruft and original research. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable topic, needs heavy cleanup. Deletion is not cleanup, see WP:SURMOUNTABLE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See below - Representation is a thing. When a form of media, genre, or say, a type of character is almost always one way for a long time, exceptions often get press coverage -- not just because they're unusual but because the people represented are often enthusiastic and want to share examples. Nominating a bunch of "[group historically underrepresented] in [an area in which they were underrepresented]" articles as WP:INDISCRIMINATE is, well, indiscriminate. Obviously there will be sources to satisfy WP:NLIST for this topic (I can link some, but I suspect that's not even in question, really), and inclusion criteria seems pretty easy to set up. The rest is just cleanup. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Really though? This article’s idea of “Asian” includes Saudi Arabia, Japan, and Indonesia, but not Russia. Where’s the sourcing for that being a notable grouping? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Russia’s physically in two continents but culturally “Russia” is mainly the European/Slavic part. Many ethnic minorities live in semi-autonomous subnational territories like the Republics of Russia. Dronebogus (talk) 11:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why I described the scope of the article as borderline-incoherent. Is it based on geography or culture or ethnicity or what? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not defending it. I nominated the thing. There’s a List of Russian superheroes but it’s total crap as well. Dronebogus (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: Definitely a notable topic with cleanup needed. However, I'd say that the article can be split into the different factions of Asia (like East Asia, Middle Eastern, Indian, etc.), though if they already exist, then yay. Conyo14 (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can find no indication that this passes WP:NLIST. Contrary to the assertion above, representation is only a "thing" if it were Western-produced comics that included Asian characters (oh sorry, just superheroes, not villains, or everyday working schlubs). Given Japan's vast production of comics, it's pretty run of the mill that most of them would be set in Japan and feature Japanese characters. And still, this smacks of WP:RGW. But for that matter, who decides what counts as Asian? as a superhero? The whole thing is an inextricable mess of WP:OR. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • NLIST is via the many articles which treat "Asian superheroes" as a group, even if it's a tricky grouping. The current list definitely needs to be pruned, since unlike some other similar lists it's unclear what kind of "superhero" it's talking about (why would a Mortal Kombat video game character be included, for example?). This one is indeed harder than some of the others nominated both because "Asian" is indeed broad but also because the others don't include one of the two giant comic-producing industries. While some of the other lists deal with a population that is indeed underrepresented in the world of comic book superheroes, Japan certainly is not, and that makes this list kind of impossible to set clear inclusion criteria for that doesn't simply include a big chunk of the manga industry in addition to other Asian superheroes. I'll admit when I first looked at this one I was thinking about the comic book world that's centered on Marvel/DC/others in North America and representation therein, which I think is also what a lot of the sources are talking about for better or worse, but that's obviously not what this is, so I'm striking my keep !vote accordingly. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 11:48, 20 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! 23:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, as a reasonable arrangements of information about an aspects of human cultural history. BD2412 T 01:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as meeting WP:LISTN per sources cited above. Has problems but does not appear unsalvageable. Might be worth considering rescoping/splitting to something like "List of Asian superheroes in non-Asian / North American media" or some such, per Rhododendrites' considerations above, although I lack the topical expertise to have a strong opinion on that. -- Visviva (talk) 17:39, 25 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 here to Keep this article and, maybe more importantly, no consensus to Delete it. Liz Read! Talk! 06:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Latino superheroes[edit]

List of Latino superheroes (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)

Arbitrary America-centric list; Superheroes from Latin American publications are extremely likely to be Latino, making it a WP:MILL cross-category; otherwise the US is basically the only country I’m aware of that considers “Latino” a distinct ethnic group. Many of the examples aren’t even notable anyway. Dronebogus (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Ethnic groups, Lists, and Latin America. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Again, notable topic in need of heavy cleanup. Deletion is, however, not cleanup, and is only for completely non-notable and unusable topics that are unfit for Wikipedia. There is no rule that states that articles cannot be deliberately about a certain country's ethnic group. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it notable? Dronebogus (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dronebogus: Here's an NPR article directly about the subject of Latino superheroes. Here's another from HuffPost. Here's yet another from NBC News. Here's another from NY Times. So yes, a full prose article on the topic of Latino superheroes is potentially possible, and a list is a shoo-in for notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Representation is a thing. When a form of media, genre, or say, a type of character is almost always one way for a long time, exceptions often get press coverage -- not just because they're unusual but because the people represented are often enthusiastic and want to share examples. Nominating a bunch of "[group historically underrepresented] in [an area in which they were underrepresented]" articles as WP:INDISCRIMINATE is, well, indiscriminate. Obviously there will be sources to satisfy WP:NLIST for this topic (I can link some, but I suspect that's not even in question, really), and inclusion criteria seems pretty easy to set up. The rest is just cleanup. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    An IP responded to your boilerplate rationale at the AfD for List of Asian superheroes by pointing out that “representation is only a thing” if it deals with a America-slash-Eurocentric worldview. Latin American superheroes exist just like Asian (geographically speaking) superheroes and the vast majority of them are probably Latino. Your whole “non white superheroes are automatically notable because they’re rare” argument falls flat, because there’s a whole world of fiction out there not made by non-Latino-white dominated countries like America. Dronebogus (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your whole “non white superheroes are automatically notable because they’re rare” argument - that isn't the argument. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 11:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, “non white superheroes should have lists because they’re universally rare” Dronebogus (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per arguments above. Also, why would it not be "List of Latin superheroes"? Doesn't Latino mean male? Conyo14 (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The modern gender neutral term is “Latinx” but I think “Hispanic” might be okay too (though I think it might be Spanish-ancestry specific, idk) Dronebogus (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability of a general topic does not indicate the need for a standalone list of every single item that's an example of that topic. There are fundamental, unfixable WP:OR issues about what counts as Latino -- ethic identity is already a thorny issue for real people, let alone fictional characters. Hell, one of the very few references in this giant mass of WP:OR calls the character "Hispanic", not "Latina". I'm really dumbfounded by the calls for keeping here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no original research issues - if a superhero is described by RS as "Latino", they are, regardless of what people may or may not claim. We go by the sources, not by people's opinions of what makes a Latino. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough links to their own articles about them, so its a valid list article. It is a logical grouping for the category so valid for a list as well. Dream Focus 07:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there seems to be a useful discussion going on. Being "America-centric" is a reason for additional editorial work not grounds for deletion. But both the Keeps and Delete arguments are weak on policy rationales.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Do we need a "policy rationale" to keep a useful arrangement of information about a notable aspect of human cultural history? BD2412 T 01:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, BD2412, a closer is supposed to weigh policy-based arguments higher than simply "I like it" votes. I mean, it's not mandatory of course, but the support of policy for your opinions is more convincing to other participating editors and to the discussion closer. For me, as a frequent closer, I am always thinking, "Can I defend this closure at Deletion Review?" because I've had to do that in the past. Having policy on your side can only add strength to your point-of-view. Liz Read! Talk! 02:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NLIST, then. Clearly this is a topic of interest to sources. BD2412 T 03:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BD2412. Meets WP:NLIST per sources identified by Zxcvbnm above. Agree that list needs cleanup and possible re-scoping, but no basis for deletion here. -- Visviva (talk) 16:43, 25 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 is a Weak Keep but Keep it is. Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ghastly Ones[edit]

Ghastly Ones (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)

Local and part-time band who have a claim to semi-fame in placing a song in a SpongeBob episode. That song placement is only discussed in esoteric cartoon discussion boards, while the band has no reliable coverage and is only visible at typical streaming and retail services, with occasional fan-written reviews. The article is currently dependent on Discogs.com entries and a dead streaming link, and I was unable to find anything better. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See also the deletion discussion for one of the members of the band: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garrett Immel. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos for tracking down those obscure sources. I'm not the combative type of nominator because I don't have to look at the article ever again, so I will merely submit a counterpoint: Three of those newspaper articles are actually brief album reviews that have little to no biographical info on the band (which should be the point of the band article here), and mostly admit to noticing the album because it was on Rob Zombie's label. That may run afoul of WP:NOTINHERITED. The fourth newspaper (Orange County) only mentions this band briefly in a general article about their genre. Meanwhile, I submit that the SpongeBob placement runs afoul of WP:ONEVENT. With this additional info, the band could be deemed just barely by the thinnest possible shave not non-notable, which could be stretched into "notable", but that's not particularly inspiring. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems entirely combative. Re oneevent, 1, we don't have an individual here, 2, you can't say because the spongebob placement is one event we'll ignore everything else, doesn't work like that, we don't say because "Bruce Springsteen has taken a nasty fall on stage" is oneevent we'll delete the whole article on him. Re only being album reviews, You can't really seperate coverage of the bands work from coverage of the band. Write an article about what the band has done. Re the Rob Zombie connection, yes the got noticed in part because of their record label (and that's why we have criteria like WP:BAND#5) but it is still coverage of them and their work. re notinherited, there has been no argument of the type they worked with Rob Zombie so they are notable, your dismissal is closer to a notinherited argument than anything else duffbeerforme (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said "may" or "merely" multiple times in my comment, and conceded that I don't have to look at the article ever again. Your statement "Seems entirely combative" is unintentionally ironic. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Weakest of !keeps. The newspapers cited above seem ok, not substantial but they look good enough. Oaktree b (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. In addition to the sources identified by Barnards.tar.gz, I'd note that there is some substantial coverage in industry periodicals in the context of the band's role in Rob Zombie's decision to set up Zombie-A-Go-Go Records, e.g. CMJ New Music Monthly and Billboard. (The CMJ article specifically credits Zombie's experience watching the band with his decision to set up the label.) So that's two mildly significant events that have occasioned independent coverage in reliable sources that yields a decent amount of content for an article (which, to be clear, is just a more straightforward way of saying that this appears to meet WP:GNG.) I don't feel like losing this article would be a terrible loss for the project but it seems like there's enough to work with here that deletion is not justified. I don't believe the WP:NOTINHERITED essay has much bearing here -- it seems directed to an argument like "there's lots of sigcov of Rob Zombie, therefore this band that he interacted with is also notable", which isn't what's going on here. -- Visviva (talk) 17:30, 25 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of female supervillains[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of female supervillains (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)

Far too many examples to bother listing; WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:MILL cross-category Dronebogus (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • As it has been pointed out my argument is flawed here, I will be changing it to the fact that this article does not offer proof the topic has "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" per WP:LISTN. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is way too broad for Wikipedia. It can go into a blog or even a database considering how many female supervillains there are. Conyo14 (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, if only there was a database on Wikimedia… Dronebogus (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wow, a 5th nomination. While we can surely debate if we want this list on Wikipedia or not, I have not seen any policy-based arguments backing up the delete-opinions. Length, specifically, is not a reason for deletion. If we limit the list to notable characters, as suggested by LaundryPizza03 - which needs a bit of trimming, but that's a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem - none of the points of WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies: Then it is not a collection of indiscriminate, uncommented information, but rather a cross-reference of information which has already been deemed notable and encyclopedic enough to include on Wikipedia, making this a navigational list in accordance with WP:LISTPURP-NAV. There is at least a bit of additional information which the category does not provide. Ideally, this could be somewhat expanded and made sortable, but it is already something.
As the last deletion discussion is not very long past, courtesy pinging the other participants who might still be interested: @Andrew Davidson, Dream Focus, Jclemens, Philoserf, Desmay, Estheim, and Jackattack1597:. Daranios (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3/4 of those are 9+ years old, and the most recent one was derailed, delegitimized, and possibly canvassed by Andrew D- who if I recall was t-banned from deletion for engaging in systematic ultra-inclusionist disruption. The point is number of times is not relevant and can’t be used to “kill” a discussion. Dronebogus (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not try to "kill" the discussion, but rather put it on a broader basis. I am not playing any game. Shall we go back to discussing the merits and drawbacks of the article, rather than the participants, while keeping the advice on renominating in view? Daranios (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is also the topically related discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female superheroes going on, for those who are interested. Daranios (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per criterion 3, The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided. Long lists are not a reason for deletion, fictional supervillains do not become MILL (only an essay, not even a guideline) just by there being a lot of them, and INDISCRIMINATE has been dealt with above. Jclemens (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anywhere in the article that, "discuss[es] the development, design, reception, significance, and influence" of the subject, or a related article that does so, so INDISCRIMINATE indeed applies and the nominator is correct in their assertion. Surely you can come up with hard proof that female supervillainesses are worthy of note, as I did above for Latino superheroes, instead of resorting to relying on technicalities in Wikipedia rules. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm: LaundryPizza03 counted 350+ stand-alone articles within the scope of this list, so presumably there is a lot of discussion of "the development, design, reception, significance, and influence" out there for individual entries. With regard to hard proof that female supervillainesses are worthy of note, please have a look at these search results: [6], [7]. If you want me to state individual secondary sources, please let me know. Daranios (talk) 10:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:OSE - simply saying there are 350 possibly non-notable articles is not sufficient to prove anything. Actual sourcing about the topic is needed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But WP:OSE does not apply, because I am not comparing to other stuff that exists on Wikipedia, but I am talking about the large number of articles within the scope of our topic, which this list is supposed to index. So far, the argument for deletion was that there are too many items within the scope of the list. Are you now arguing that there are not enough? Or, do you really think that (almost) all of those articles are likely to be deleted on grounds of notability, so that the list may no longer be necessary some time in the future? For actual sourcing on the topic, aside from the individual articles, I have already referred to sources above. Daranios (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You can’t speedy keep something with multiple delete votes. That means multiple people do not agree with your assessment that the nomination is “completely erroneous”, which isn’t even applicable here. You’re playing the same game Daranios is playing, and Andrew played last time— trying to knock it out prematurely using technicalities. Dronebogus (talk) 11:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You absolutely can. Where did you get the impression that one or more delete !votes prevented an otherwise applicable speedy keep? Jclemens (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having too many entries to fill a single list, is not a reason to delete the list. Just create multiple list then. If the list had columns that listed additional information, instead of just the name, it'd be more useful. Example, list the year they were created and what their powers are. Dream Focus 20:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Representation is a thing. When a form of media, genre, or say, a type of character is almost always one way for a long time, exceptions often get press coverage -- not just because they're unusual but because the people represented are often enthusiastic and want to share examples. Nominating a bunch of "[group historically underrepresented] in [an area in which they were underrepresented]" articles as WP:INDISCRIMINATE is, well, indiscriminate. Obviously there will be sources to satisfy WP:NLIST for this topic, and inclusion criteria seems pretty easy to set up. The rest is just cleanup. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wp:Indiscriminate refers to data without context as well as things with no inclusion standards Dronebogus (talk) 11:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it’s WP:NOTDATA but they’re easily confused and both legitimate reasons to delete something Dronebogus (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which of the four points of WP:NOTDATA would apply to our list here? Daranios (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant WP:NOTDIR, the first one Dronebogus (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The first point of WP:NOTDIR specifically allows for listings of notable entries. I guess we can take from that the suggestion to remove non-notable entries without further commentary. But that would be a limited trim, an improvement that can be done through normal editing, and therefore not grounds for deletion according to WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and WP:ATD. Daranios (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Absolutely trivial and not truly encyclopedic. Dympies (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dympies: If that were the case, why would have 350+ individual encyclopedia articles on this topic? Daranios (talk) 10:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - there's no guarantee most of those are notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See my reply above. Is there ever a guarantee for anything? That's why we have WP:AGF. Daranios (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We need something better here than basically attacking the article for clearly being relevant. I also feel we need to do some kind of AFD salting so we don't have to do this for the 6th time soon.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If this article is Kept, could we go longer before a 6th nomination is made?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and amend whatever policy is asserted to apply in contravention to this to clarify that this is a permissible list. The issue I see with this is not its existence, but the absence of sources. BD2412 T 01:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just an observation from reviewing recent AFDs, but it's curious that List of female superheroes has only been nominated at AFD once while the supervillains article has been nominated 5 times. Liz Read! Talk! 02:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps because there is a notable cause for superheroes than villains? I'm just speculating though. Conyo14 (talk) 08:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can tell from personal experience that it is easier to find sources discussing female superheroes than female supervillains, though both exist. Daranios (talk) 10:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's definitely an interesting insight. What was the outcome for the superhero AfD? Pumpkinspyce (talk • contribs) 00:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It was actually nominated twice, though the first time it was nominated under a different name (List of superheroines). Both were kept. Conyo14 (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheInsatiableOne: Which of the four points of WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies to our list here in your view? Daranios (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. ... merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" TheInsatiableOne (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, so as discussed above we should limit the list to entries already present on Wikipedia, which is already the case for the most part. Then the required context is present at all the blue-linked articles (otherwise they would not be Wikipedia articles). That can be done as part of normal editing and is therefore not grounds for deletion according to WP:SURMOUNTABLE. (Also, we have a very small amount of context present here in the form of the list's structure.) Daranios (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like arguing that collating data in itself produces context, which seems dubious. TompaDompa (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's arguing that lists in which "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia" are one type of accepted lists on Wikipedia, and are not inherently in conflict with WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as TheInsatiableOne seemed to imply. And that in such lists the encyclopedic explanation are provided in the indvidual articles rather than the list itself, like e.g. List of German-language poets. None of the four specific points of WP:INDISCRIMINATE was said to apply here. Daranios (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Restricting lists to entries with Wikipedia articles is a common way of setting up inclusion criteria, which really has nothing to do with providing context. Saying that the encyclopedic explanation are provided in the indvidual articles rather than the list itself is basically arguing that as long the entries have articles, creating a list is its own justification because collating the links produces the context. TompaDompa (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I am saying that a list restricted to entries with their own articles is justified with regard to WP:INDISCRIMINATE, not because collating the links produces the context, but because if there's an article to link to, then that topic has to be encyclopedic and that article has to have the context. - Otherwise how would you explain the existence of List of German-language poets, which is put forth as an illustrative example by WP:Stand-alone lists? There may very well be other considerations, though, like the question if we need a list with regard to WP:CLN, if the list purely provides the article names. Daranios (talk) 10:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would start by noting that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and go on to point out that fact is not fiction and the two are not to be treated the same way. More to the point: if you have to go elsewhere to find the context, the data is not presented in context, now is it? TompaDompa (talk) 23:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TompaDompa: I believe such a restrictive interpretation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE beyond the listed four cases when applied to lists is contrary to consensus on Wikipedia. The only way to confirm this belief I can think of is pointing to the abundance of other articles which would conflict with this restrictive interpretation, e.g. all disambiguation pages. There may be a difference between fact and fiction, but I think there are no policies to treat them differently on Wikipedia, are there? And then it becomes a point to form local consensus for each individual case if an article/list is wanted or not based on WP:PAGEDECIDE, other reasons being absent. If the data is presented in context elsewhere on Wikipedia and the list does not contain no new information, as long as it helps in navigation to that context, that in my view is a valid approach. Daranios (talk) 09:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WAF is all about special considerations when dealing with fiction. As for disambiguation pages, we don't have the John Lee disambiguation page because people who share that name make up a meaningful set—we have it to aid readers who are looking for a specific article among the ones listed but don't know its exact title. The difference here is that of course nobody looking for e.g. the Catwoman article is going to come looking at the List of female supervillains article to find it. A list like this doesn't at all serve the same purpose as a disambiguation page. TompaDompa (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    True, disambiguation pages differ in function from our list here, just like lists following WP:LISTPURP-NAV differ from regular articles. That's why I think WP:INDISCRIMINATE should not be applied in exactly the same way to all three types. Though I guess we may disagree on wether the function of browsing falls under the purpose of navigation or not. Thanks for pointing out WP:WAF. In it did not see suggestions to treat such lists on topics of fiction as we have here differently from lists of factual topics, however. Daranios (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The real reason raw-data lists like these exist is because people don’t know categories exist and that’s unlikely to change. There is no novel information or context provided here and that’s patently obvious. Dronebogus (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dronebogus: Maybe so, but that means that deletion would hurt rather than help the project overall, if the list helps persons navigate/browse who don't (like to) use categories. And of course lists do have advantages over categories, even if not yet fully realized here. Daranios (talk) 09:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per others, above. - jc37 11:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is not temporary. This has been discussed four times previously, and in all four times the result was keep. There are plenty of good reasons to keep, but there is no reason to even discuss this when we've been over it so many times already.Jacona (talk) 23:39, 27 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! 06:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Autoflower Cup[edit]

Autoflower 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)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. It appears that a sock of User:Expertwikiguy created this. Chisisi Handal (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP I am the creator of the page. The subject has enough coverage to meet the WP:GNG policies of Wikipedia. Googleboywonder (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This deletion should be struck because this nominator is a sock. Obviously a new user would not know how to immediately nominate a page for deletion and have so much knowledge of Wikipedia policies, so he must be a sock. And yet he is accusing me of being a sock of a random other user without providing any details on how he came to this conclusion. He even posted a message on my talk page, as if he is a super experienced editor, maybe impersonating admins. He only opened his account to get this page deleted. Googleboywonder (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Comment struck as user has been blocked for block evasion. - Bilby (talk) 04:43, 29 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! 23:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just to confirm User:Googleboywonder, do you have a COI related to Autoflower Cup? - Indefensible (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for PROMO. All links to this thing are PR items, including Yahoo Finance [8]. Oaktree b (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possibly TOOSOON. The international contest is only 3 years old and the US one was first held this year. I find no independent sources that are substantially about the event. This is a bit hard to judge because nearly all of the sources are from the cannabis industry and even those are pretty immature. I did not see any that I could say fit our vision of a "reliable source." Lamona (talk) 04:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article refers to dubious websites or press releases. At times, the text looks like an advertisement. --Wyndhan Han (talk) 11:25, 29 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! 07:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baldwins Gardens[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, only source is primary. Google has few hits and the ones that exist are not secondary/reliable. Rschen7754 18:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep per James500. The street is still narrow and residential but the coverage he found is impressive. Thank you, James500! gidonb (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG. Baldwins Gardens has received significant coverage in many reliable independent books. [For the avoidance of doubt: Although the article refers to the 17th century, Baldwin's Gardens (note the apostrophe which is sometimes used), formerly called Baldwin's Rents, is said to have been built in 1589: [9].] James500 (talk) 12:31, 24 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! 23:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Sources found sufficient to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable in the 17th century as one of few debtors' sanctuaries in London/Middlesex and specifically listed in an Act of Parliament. WP:NTEMP applies. Sources sufficient to pass GNG. The article can be further expanded with more recent history. Rupples (talk) 02:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable for various reasons. Also the Site of the Central School of the National Society for Promoting Religious Education in the early 19th century. TSventon (talk) 22:19, 28 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 White Night festivals. Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looptopia[edit]

Looptopia (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 attempted to redirect this a couple years ago and was reverted. On review, it doesn't appear to pass the WP:NEVENT test, with coverage only in local works, and limited only to the one area. I think Chicago Loop is a reasonable redirect/merge target if there is some desire alternative to deletion. Izno (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As creator of this article I strongly recommend that it be merged into and redirected towards White Night festivals where it would have better informative use. Victor Grigas (talk) 22:10, 17 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! 23:11, 24 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! 23:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draco Foundation (NZ) Charitable Trust[edit]

Draco Foundation (NZ) Charitable Trust (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 and defunct charitable trust. Article orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't seem to find any coverage either. The article is also written terribly. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 10:37, 30 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 Survivor 41. Liz Read! Talk! 19:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Casupanan[edit]

Erika Casupanan (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)

Even one article about this person representing Asians onscreen may not be enough to absolve the article's potential issues, especially with WP:BLP1E. Sure, her win in Survivor 41 was watched by millions of viewers, but so were other Survivor winners. Even notability for being a Survivor winner and nothing else has been proven insufficient to save an article from being redirected to another article, if not deleted, as what happened to some other articles. I've yet to see her being notable for other events besides her Survivor win.

Even complying with WP:GNG or WP:SUSTAINED, depending on one's own interpretations, would not prevent that as well. Neither would her being the first Asian Canadian winner as well nor being the first female winner after six Survivor seasons (or after three years) of male winners. George Ho (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot: should be redirected to Survivor 41. If not, then to the list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. George Ho (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more participants in AFD land! Opinions, anyone? Redirection? If so, to which suggested target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Survivor article for that season. I'm doing what I can! Phew! Oaktree b (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge WP:GNG stands for celebrity reality shows but doesn't stand for solo topic Gerblinpete (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:11, 30 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 James Middleton. Liz Read! Talk! 19:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boomf[edit]

Boomf (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 fact that 6 out of 7 references here mention the Middleton name in their headline suggest that this business was only covered by the press because it was founded by the now Princess of Wales' brother. WP:INHERITORG states that an organization is not notable merely because a notable person was associated with it. The company went into administration in 2021, see here and here[expired token, link not available]. I don't think the company would be considered noteworthy on its own merits without the named associations. The creator of the article also appears to be a SPA, who exclusively wrote about, perhaps for promotional reasons, Boomf. Uhooep (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would be against consensus to argue that Boomf is notable because it is associated with James Middleton. At the same time it is against consensus to argue that a topic with significant independent coverage is not notable because it is associated with James Middleton. We should consider the coverage that exists, not speculate about why it exists. Gab4gab (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and Redirect to James Middleton. This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *about 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. Looking at the references, all of the information has been provided by the company and/or a company exec (e.g Middleton) and there is no "Independent Content" - i.e. "original and independent opinion/analysis/investigation/etc" *about the company*. There's a review of the product but that doesn't provide sufficient in-depth information about the *company*. I'm unable to locate any references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability so a Merge is the best option. HighKing++ 12:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for a Merge and/or Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unsuitable for its own article as per nomination. Links to James Middleton seem to be a good reason to merge with a redirect to his article. Karnataka (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Women's Premier Soccer League. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TSJ FC Virginia[edit]

TSJ FC Virginia (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:NORG and WP:GNG as a youth soccer team. All of the coverage in the article is either about the Washington Spirit or is a primary press release, or an article on a former player which only briefly mentions the organisation. There is a WPSL section, but a third tier soccer team in the USA wouldn't necessarily pass WP:GNG, and I can't find any information on them either. SportingFlyer T·C 00:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Virginia. SportingFlyer T·C 00:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2006 WPSL season, only claim to fame. GiantSnowman 21:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I expanded this article after stumbling on it in a few different contexts and noticing it hadn't been updated since around 2009. I don't oppose deletion. I disagree with GiantSnowman that the one-year existence in WPSL is its only or most notable trait since there's even less coverage available of that than the first Burke abuse allegations or the Torres hiring controversy, which are connected to what happened at the Spirit but about FCV. Its connections as the youth club of a few senior USWNT players are also more notable than the one WPSL season, though not enough on its own for GNG. Most of the content for the WPSL season is also unsourced, and I can't find sources for it.
I'd rather summarize this article's contents in a separate article about The St. James (sports complex), which has considerably more IS/RS/SIGCOV (USA Today; Northern Virginia Magazine 1, 2, Washington Business Journal 1, 2; The Athletic on the Spirit bid; plus RS but likely non-IS NBC Sports on its MLS DC United partnership; Washingtonian 1, 2, 3, 4; and all the cited SoccerWire and W&M mag content) and then redirect this and the old article title F.C. Virginia to that. -Socccc (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opposition to either of these options, though the Spirit controversy only seems very tangentially about the team. SportingFlyer T·C 00:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The initial allegations against Burke of using abusive language toward players was reported by a parent of a FCV player, and those alleged incidents occurred entirely while Burke was at FCV and before the Spirit hired him. FCV hired Torres well after Torres had exited the Spirit. Both of those events got significant, independent, and reliable coverage in the context of FCV, particularly Burke's alleged abuse at FCV (Burke 1 with out-of-market print syndication, 2; Torres). But I don't disagree that if FCV isn't already notable on its own, then that alone doesn't make it so.
The St. James bid for the Spirit is admittedly tangential as context for the connections between TSJ, FCV, and the Spirit, and better served between the Spirit's article and an article about The St. James org/complex, not FCV. -Socccc (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft for an article on The St. James, which summarizes FC Virginia, its acquisition, and connections to the Spirit, is at Draft:The St. James (sports complex). If approved for AfC, I'd suggest redirecting to that article. If not approved, I suggest redirecting to Women's Premier Soccer League, which lists it, and categorizing the redirect under Category:Elite Clubs National League teams to capture the youth soccer context. -Socccc (talk) 02:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft passed AfC and is live at The St. James (sports complex). -Socccc (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
There is support for a Redirect but different target articles offered. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to Women's Premier Soccer League is the best option because it is listed as a team, whereas in 2006 WPSL season it is listed as a participant. Karnataka (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Black Birders Week. Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kassandra Ford[edit]

Kassandra Ford (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)

Probably an attempt of WP:AUTOBIO, the article doesn't pass any notability criteria. No significant coverage, scientific publications with very low impact currently (e.g., as seen on her Google scholar profile and her h-index of 3: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=f4g3gQgAAAAJ). There is nothing to justify WP:ACADEMIC. Chiserc (talk) 23:24, 10 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! 23:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There are numerous red flags. For example, the subject is a post-doc and has almost no notable research (h-index 3; ~40 total citations). The text is misleading regarding awards, e.g. postdoctoral fellow is not notable. Most of the references are ephemeral/web. Text is also misleading with respect to Black Birders Week, which was actually organized by dozens of people. In fact, her name is not even mentioned in the WP article on that topic. Overall, this appears to be a fanpage/boosterpage. 128.252.172.27 (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge to Black Birders Week, which indeed does not currently mention her but probably should. Otherwise probably delete. I don't know if there's a name for the phenomenon in this article, in which the bulk of the article is taken up with personal information that does not relate to the notability claim, thus turning the concept of notability (qua sources sufficient to support an article) on its head. But it's definitely a red flag of sorts. That's not because the article is necessarily promotional let alone self-promotional, but because it's unavoidably invasive and ends up exposing information that would otherwise be substantially private. That's just not a good outcome for anyone (either Wikipedia or the article subject), even if formal BLP issues can be avoided. Although the subject's feelings may not be relevant to the outcome of the AFD, I would not assume that the article subject welcomes this level of coverage. -- Visviva (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Definitely does not meet any NPROF criteria (postdocs/asst profs rarely do), and I am not seeing sustained significant coverage in IRS to support GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for a Merge of this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 24 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! 23:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agents of Secret Stuff[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Agents of Secret Stuff (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 film does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Besides all the primary sources used in the article (like YouTube and the production website), all the secondary ones used here either do not meet WP:SIGCOV, are blogs/user-generated, or are unreliable (or of unknown reliability). The NPR could be counted towards notability, but it still does not fulfill all the requirements. I was considering the previous deletion discussions before nominating this, but I also fail to see how this film satisfies WP:NFIC as there are not enough reliable sources to claim its impact on the industry and it can be neatly summarized or redirected to the Ryan Higa article. Sparkltalk 20:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Niqui, Cinto (2014-11-14). Los primeros 20 años de contenidos audiovisuales en Internet. 1000 obras y webs (in Spanish). Editorial UOC. ISBN 978-84-9064-486-7.
  • Nice catch, but unfortunately YouTube views don't always fulfill notability (WP:YTN). The book that was cited also disclosed that they sometimes lift information from Wikipedia, stated in page 5. Sparkltalk 15:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Miller, Liz Shannon (2010-11-24). "NigaHiga's New Film Gets Digital Artists, Strompolos Support". Gigaom. Archived from the original on 2012-11-04. Retrieved 2023-06-26.

      The article notes: "The YouTube release of the 35-minute film Agents of Secret Stuff, directed by Wong Fu Productions and starring Higa as a hapless teenage secret agent. ... Agents, initially a self-funded production, has been picked up by the studio Digital Artists to expand its reach beyond the YouTube sphere, including mobile, television and film platforms. ... The actual film is a slickly-produced spy comedy nicely anchored by Higa, who plays a teenager who’s spent his entire life training to be a secret agent, and thus when sent undercover to protect a pretty high school student (Arden Cho) from danger, has no idea how to handle normal high school life. Writing-wise, there’s some lack of sophistication ... Agents, in short, certainly won’t disappoint any hardcore NigaHiga fans, but in terms of execution wouldn’t be out of place in any mainstream line-up of teen programming."

    2. Lee, Letticia (2010-11-19). "Ryan Higa Stars in Agents of Secret Stuff". Asia Pacific Arts. USC U.S.-China Institute. University of Southern California. p. 2. EBSCOhost 64885278.

      The article notes: "This time it's not just a regular short YouTube episode; it's a 40-minute "medium film." The term "medium film" is chosen to represent this collaboration because it is too long to be a short film but too short to be labeled a full-on feature film. Ryan Higa and Wong Fu Productions are ready to show their "medium film," Agents of Secret Stuff to the rest of the YouTube nation. The feature is a true YouTube phenomenon since it not only stars Ryan Higa but also model/actress, Arden Cho, who has her own channel as well. The rest of the cast consists of other YouTube stars including Smosh, Kassem G, and HiimRawn."

    3. Takahashi, Corey (2011-01-26). "In A Small Corner Of YouTube, A Web Star Is Born". NPR. Archived from the original on 2023-06-26. Retrieved 2023-06-26.

      The article notes: ""As long as I can remember, I've been training to become an A.S.S. — an agent of secret stuff," Higa's character, Aden, tells viewers at the start of Agents of Secret Stuff, a 35-minute action-comedy set in high school. The straight-to-YouTube mini-feature follows the mishaps of a covert, socially maladjusted hero who must save a classmate from impending threats. The video features a who's who of YouTube stars, and it's clocked well over 8 million views in the past two months. ... Wong Fu Productions, a production house based in Pasadena, Calif., directed, co-wrote and co-produced Agents of Secret Stuff with Higa, and has worked with him on shorter comedy sketches in the past. ... It partnered with the makers of Agents of Secret Stuff to release a special edition of the movie for iTunes, as well as mobile apps."

    4. O'Dell, Jolie (2010-11-27). "Kitschy Indie Spy Feature Premieres on YouTube [Randomly Viral]". Mashable. Archived from the original on 2023-06-26. Retrieved 2023-06-26.

      The article notes: "Earlier this week, a group of independent filmmakers decided to put their 35-minute film on YouTube. Wong Fu Productions' Agents of Secret Stuff has since performed fabulously, garnering more than 2 million views for the full film itself and nearly 2.7 million views for the trailer. ... WFP co-founder Philip Wang told YouTube that the entire movie was shot in one intense week this past summer."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Agents of Secret Stuff to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep in view of the additional reliable sources identified in this discussion which together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:47, 27 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ChoCo Entertainment[edit]

ChoCo Entertainment (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)

Routine coverage. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. US-Verified (talk) 20:04, 24 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 Aberystwyth University. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aberystwyth University Students' Union[edit]

Aberystwyth University Students' Union (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 has been tagged for notability and dependence on primary/ own sources since 2017 and remains in that state to the present. Searches reveal very little else. Plenty of social media and the occasional local paper mention when things get exiting in town but nothing that stacks up to notability. Only a few students Unions do make the grade for notability. The claim that it one of the oldest might make the notability threshold but that would need good sources which I couldn't find. There is a chance that there are good sources in the Welsh Language but even searching through the Welsh medium press output did not immediately reveal anything obviously noteworthy.  Velella  Velella Talk   19:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fraternities and sororities and Wales.  Velella  Velella Talk   19:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see the point of deletion. Were it a stub, written about a recently formed institution without significant history, and if we were sorely constrained for space like in a print encyclopedia, I might think otherwise. But this is well written and the group appears to have affected many student participants over a century. Thus, here I do not think deletion serves our readers nor the aim of Wikipedia. The article simply is a work in progress, like many articles, and should be left to gather them. Jax MN (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Aberystwyth University, charitably, this seems to be here for the wrong reason, as an extension to the student union website. It's largely original research or cited to the university/stduent union sources. Though some events occasionally reach the news, there isn't enough basis for a Wikipedia article. Sionk (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Aberystwyth University, per Sionk. Not sufficiently notable for its own page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested above. --Bduke (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - as outlined above. Not enough notability for a separate article. Dunarc (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Aberystwyth University.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Insomnium. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ville Friman[edit]

Ville Friman (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)

My desired outcome is a redirect to the subject's band. To be clear: the band is notable, but there is no indication that this individual is individually notable as a musician; he plays in two other non-notable bands, but does not appear to have a solo career--and there is no secondary sourcing, not even a claim of any, of his being notable by himself.

The redirect I put in place ("no notability outside of his band; there's no indication that NPROF is met, for instance, given this complete lack of secondary sourcing") was reverted, and an argument was made on the talk page that the man is notable as a microbiologist (and meet NPROF, I presume). But that's not unproblematic: first of all the article in its current condition is about a musician, not a scientist, and second, we are talking about a beginning scholar who apparently got one co-credit in an article and once a place on a panel as one of thirty scholars. I'll repeat what I said on the talk page, to User:Invasive Spices: "Well, what you have is a five-page note on a panel in which your guy is one of some thirty participants, so I am not sure how you can argue that that is a notable publication written by him. The other article is jointly written with five other authors, and it is cited, true, by a few other articles, but none of them discuss Friman or, it seems, actually discuss the work. In other words, there really is no indication that he is a notable scholar who has made important contributions to the field, as required by NPROF." Drmies (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invasive Spices (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Insomnium. I will assume good faith from those who created the article, because Friman's academic career outside of the band may be worth discussing in its own right. However, there are notability rules at WP:NACADEMIC that must also be satisfied, and Friman does not. Publishing research articles and attending conferences are good for his university job but not enough for an encyclopedic article. (Disclaimer: I am also a university professor who has had research articles published in professional journals, and my boss is suitably impressed but I would not remotely qualify for a WP article just because of that.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Insomnium per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Nomination withdrawn Liz Read! Talk! 19:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minhazuddin Ahmed Sagar[edit]

Minhazuddin Ahmed Sagar (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 indication of notability. Coverage is non-existent. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete No sources found. Reference section is blank. Failed WP:N. Ontor22 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This article does not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He is twice chess champion of Bangladesh which is no small achievement. Wikipedia's RS rules are a kind of an institutionalized form of discrimination. Plenty of weaker players with lesser achievements than him have wikipedia artices, but his notability is being called into question because he comes from a poor country which doesn't get a lot of coverage in either mainstream or specialist chess publications. I'm not saying sources will be easy to find but I'm certainly leaning towards keep. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article indeed provides no sources. I expect that there should be a couple of English-language articles out there about him winning the Bangladeshi championship in 2010 and 2015, but I have not yet found them. I have found articles about other guys winning other Bangladeshi championships, however, so I am still at it.
The Bangladeshi wiki article likewise provides no sources, and indeed, it may be that our article is copied from theirs.
The Russian wiki article provides a fairly substantial tournament record, perhaps gleaned from chessresults.com, but it does not provide the kind of sources that English wiki would expect.
The article uses several different variations on his name (Minhaz vs. Minhaj, Sagar or not Sagar, order of names, etc.). One version is used in his FIDE card, and one version is used in Bangladeshi Chess Championship, etc. If this article survives, we should do something about using one version uniformly in the article and mentioning other versions in the first paragraph. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Something seems to be going wrong. Here is strongly entangled. Perhaps some ignorant editor was involved. The news was found in the Daily Star [1], where the name Minhazuddin Ahmed Sagar is found. He is said to be Mohammad Minhaj Uddin in Jugantor. [2]. The gap between the two news is about 14 years, same person or two different persons (confused). Available at Wikidata. [3] The previously used image was also of the wrong person which has been removed by আফতাবুজ্জামান. Strong Investigate required. Ontor22 (talk) 07:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn- Based on the comments and additional sources being added to the article.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 11:59, 28 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 Central Commission for Discipline Inspection#Duties and responsibilities. Liz Read! Talk! 19:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Violations of Chinese Communist Party Political Discipline[edit]

Violations of Chinese Communist Party Political Discipline (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 content here is entirely duplicative of and covered by Central Commission for Discipline Inspection. Recommend deleting and replacing with a redirect to Central Commission for Discipline Inspection. Amigao (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • It certainly looks like this article contains no information not already present in the CCDI article, but that article is longer than my attention span, so I can't verify. It also looks like this article references two sources the CCDI article doesn't: one by OECD (whoever they are), and one coauthored by Kjeld Erik Brødsgaard and himself wearing his faculty title. I see it was written with the VisualEditor, so it's probably Zotero's google books translator, with Citoid propagating the error downstream and the article's author neglecting to clean it up.
    Script generated citation issues aside, I think WP:BLAR to Central Commission for Discipline Inspection#Duties and responsibilities is the most reasonable outcome here, and if someone believes not all the content is present in the target article, the history will remain visible for salvage and incorporation. Folly Mox (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with WP:BLAR to Central Commission for Discipline Inspection#Duties and responsibilities Amigao (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Central Commission for Discipline Inspection as content is repetitive. Karnataka (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naresh Eswar[edit]

Naresh Eswar (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. Article looks like it was made without following notability guidelines. Only source found: [10]. Probably, WP:TOOSOON. DareshMohan (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as sources are mainly routine about events he will take part in, and other interviews. so should fail the actor notability guideline. Karnataka (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Giovanopoulos[edit]

Paul Giovanopoulos (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)

An artist who may have had some important private clients, but still shows no signs of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. After 11 years of waiting for improvement on the situation, I think it's time for this article to go. Sionk (talk) 16:49, 24 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Stetson[edit]

Andrew Stetson (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:BLP of a model, not properly referenced as passing notability criteria for models. The only substantive notability claim here is that he's had modelling jobs, which is not automatically enough in and of itself, and the referencing is entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all (directory entry, magazine cover appearance meta-referenced to itself rather than third-party coverage about it, etc.) with absolutely no evidence of WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about him shown at all.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 24 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. Complex/Rational 15:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shashankan Mayyanad[edit]

Shashankan Mayyanad (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. Has done small roles in multiple movies, but nothing of note. The references also do not indicate notability is met. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG Jupitus Smart 14:33, 24 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 13:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ihor Hrytsyuk[edit]

Ihor Hrytsyuk (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)

Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. is what WP:SPORTBASIC tells us is a requirement for any footballer to have their own article. Whilst I note that this footballer has an article on Ukrainian Wikipedia, all of the references used there are just database sources. The only non-database source that I could find in Ukrainian was Rayon, which is only a trivial mention of Hrytsyuk. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:59, 24 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. and limit the list to notable entries. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Russian superheroes[edit]

List of Russian superheroes (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 this is a notable intersection of topics, and even if it was a list format is not how to discuss it. Lists are nearly always uninformative crap unless you are talking about statistics, or chronologies of office holders or award winners. Dronebogus (talk) 08:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Dronebogus (talk) 08:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Russia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question @Dronebogus: I don’t think this is a notable intersection of topics: Is that based on a WP:BEFORE search, or just an opinion? Thanks! Daranios (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s just a guess, but I think a pretty reasonable one since the list is mostly non-notable examples. If the topic is notable, we should make an article and then a list. Dronebogus (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dronebogus: Would you consider doing such a WP:BEFORE search after all to substantiate your claim? It's an expected part of what the nominator should do in the deletion process, when notability is the issue. Daranios (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ll try when I can but right now I’m mildly ill. Dronebogus (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I wish you a speedy recovery! Daranios (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It was just a bad stomachache from overeating, I’m fine. I did a quick look and, no, there do not appear to be any non-listacle sources about Russian superheroes as a group. Dronebogus (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Listicle" has been used as to be non-serious in discussions on Wikipedia, but I believe that this has to be decided on a case-by-case basis - especially as we are dealing with a list here, too. So I would be interested what listicle sources there were. Thanks. Daranios (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Look in “news” on google. Usual “TOP 10 MOST THINGIEST RUSSIAN SUPERS” from lower-quality websites known for churnalism. Dronebogus (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Same as all the others. There are enough entries with their own Wikipedia articles to make this a valid navigational list, far more useful than the category for this at Category:Russian superheroes since it allows more information to be displayed. Any entry that isn't notable can be removed. Dream Focus 15:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural keep. "Lists are nearly always uninformative crap" is an obviously invalid deletion rationale and suggests that the nominator doesn't take this process or this project seriously. pburka (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you even read the above comment string with Daranios? I did WP:BEFORE and got nothing much other than low-quality listicles, confirming my actual rationale that this is not a notable intersection of topics. WP:AGF applies here. Dronebogus (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and limit to notable entries. There are enough notable entries to maintain a list. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:40, 24 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 13:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maradhoo Feydhoo School[edit]

Maradhoo Feydhoo 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)

This article was initially an advertisement for the school written by an WP:SPA but the promotional stuff later got purged. There are no reliable sources currently cited and I wasn't able to find any sources satisfying WP:GNG or WP:NORG in my own searches. AO News (translated from Dhivehi) was the best that I could find and it's nowhere near good enough on its own. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:38, 24 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 23:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New generation of African leaders[edit]

New generation of African leaders (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 does not appear to be a notable subject. I struggled to find any RS to substantiate that this is a coherent and consistent term that has long-term encyclopedic value. Thenightaway (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, on the basis there's very little evidence presented for this phrase the article appears to be quite essay-like. Sionk (talk) 21:37, 24 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 14:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Viviana Campanile Zagorianakou[edit]

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

Seems to only be notable for a single event, a Greek beauty pageant (which she won) and, more dubiously, for competing in Miss Universe. The coverage that I can find is all very much concentrated around that one event, and is news rather than analysis (WP:NOTNEWS, and she doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Indeed, practically all of the first page of Google on her is mirrors and copies of this article. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 17. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 12:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, Greece, and Italy. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I added some references, although they may not be enough to prove notability. A bit of speculation: If she is still the romantic partner of Ilias Kasidiaris, a former member of parliament who is currently in prison, she may run for office herself. I will leave it to people who are more familiar with Greek politics than I am to say whether this is likely. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that would fall under WP:TOOSOON, wouldn't it? That is, we shouldn't have an article because of something that might happen (unless it's been covered extensively as a possibility in sources, so GNG is met that way): if we think she might become notable in the future, the usual pathway would be to delete the article for now but recreate it if/when the situation changes. We do the same for e.g. sporting events in the far future: we shouldn't create 2048 Olympic Games at the moment, even though it's 100% certain that that topic will pass GNG and need an article in the future. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not in depth coverage by RS. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 10:04, 30 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 13:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmaraja Vidyalaya[edit]

Dharmaraja Vidyalaya (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)

All of my searches in English and Sinhala ("ධර්මරාජ විද්‍යාලය" + හෝමාගම) don't seem to yield any decent coverage for this to pass WP:GNG and WP:NORG or at least one of those guidelines. There is plenty about the notable Dharmaraja College in Kandy but I can't find anything about the school of the same name in or near Homagama. It probably exists but whether or not it warrants an article, particularly an unsourced one, is highly questionable. Article created by WP:SPA. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:18, 24 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 13:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lama Gonpo Tseten[edit]

Lama Gonpo Tseten (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 in meeting WP:GNG. No reliable sources, references personal affiliates, and the most of the article can be attributed to a self-published blog by the editor who created and wrote most of the article. Student reports in the article are completely unreliable/unsourced and have dubious claims. Could not find reliable independent sources when searching. FutureFlowsLoveYou (talk) 12:18, 24 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! 06:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bharsaiyan[edit]

Bharsaiyan (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 went through Google search and the article itself. It also fails WP:GNG to be kept as a standalone article. The only source, which is cited there is also a WP:RAJ era source, which is not considered WP:RS for caste related articles.-Admantine123 (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and India. Admantine123 (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can persuade me otherwise. I have tidied up the single reference. I think it valuable to have coverage of 19th century Indian tribes castes and descriptions of them at that time but this needs to be put in a reasonably current context and not solely from an imperial point of view. I think this article does not succeed. It also seems the coverage is insufficient in notability terms. Thincat (talk) 08:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletefalls significantly short of meeting the standards set by GNG.AmusingWeasel (talk) 09:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:52, 24 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. As this is due to lack of participation, there is no prejudice against speedy renomination. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karthigai Deepam (TV series)[edit]

Karthigai Deepam (TV series) (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)

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. @Tirishan: The drama has released and this show has reached millions of watch TRP rating.[11] The drama has a strong fan base. I think this is enough for notability.[12] interview from karthigai deepam serial actress Arthika. [13]--P.Karthik.95 (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ^ from article creator. From the sources you just listed, in my understanding TRP itself would not satisfy WP:RPRGM, and the interview does not contain enough WP:SIGCOV on the show itself. Tirishan (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • from delete nomineter @Tirishan:. The big problem in Tamil show, all sources are in Tamil language. what can i do :( --P.Karthik.95 (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is the content inside the sources, language isn't the issue. In my opinion the source contents don't meet the standards I listed. Tirishan (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Why don't you help standards listed of the article? :) P.Karthik.95 (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:09, 10 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! 05:51, 17 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, Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 24 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peranbu (TV series)[edit]

Peranbu (TV series) (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)

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:09, 10 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! 06:10, 17 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, Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keepmost of people know about this series. you nominated this is actually a well known one. It does cite it's notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.196.216.129 (talk) 18:26, 26 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! 02:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addison Road, London[edit]

Addison Road, London (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 secondary source about the road is used to source 1 sentence about the name. The other sources are used to discuss various buildings along the road and not the road itself. LondonTown.com and London's Abandoned Tube Stations are not RS. Rschen7754 06:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Rschen7754 06:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Kensington or other appropriate area article. I agree that the road itself is not independently notable, but there is salvageable content which could plausibly be used in an "Architecture" or "Listed Buildings" section of a broader article. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 06:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — a historic road with very strong literary connections, some already mentioned, but others are not such as Radclyffe Hall and Joseph Conrad. There are scholarly references currently not included, e.g., see https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-09387-8_3 —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those two articles don't mention Addison Road, and the Springer link goes to a chapter of a book which contains a passing mention of it, which I don't think counts as either scholarly or supportive of notability. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The link provided fails WP:SIGCOV as it is a trivial mention. --Rschen7754 16:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Addison Road has its own entry in The Encyclopaedia of London (Macmillan, 1983), indicative of notability. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you write anything more about the road from that source besides that it exists? Rschen7754 20:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked my copy of the Encyclopedia of London and it has a an entry that goes far beyond simply stating the road's existence. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is divided between those supporting Merge and those advocating Keep. No support for article deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I believe the Survey of London and Pevsner London 3: North West individually provide SIGCOV, which is supplemented by The London Encyclopaedia (5 sentences). There are eight groups of listed buildings, including Debenham House, which contribute to the notability of the Street. TSventon (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 12:49, 24 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. If anyone would like to work on this article to improve it, I'm willing to restore it to Draft space on request where it can be submitted to WP:AFC for review to see if can overcome problems pointed out in this AFD discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Souâd Benkredda[edit]

Souâd Benkredda (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. Article is largely sourced to lists of "100 best people" or the like; no other sources found beyond linkedin or various mentions of positions they've held. Oaktree b (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear participants of the discussion,
As an employee of DZ BANK, I would like to participate in this discussion and explain the measures we have taken to prevent the deletion of our board member Souâd Benkredda’s entry. Initially, we made content additions and added additional objective sources such as German business newspapers Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Börsen-Zeitung, Bloomberg Television, and the Expert Commission on Stock Exchange to avoid the impression that Ms. Benkredda is only listed in overview lists. Her contributions in the mentioned media outlets, as well as her involvement in the Expert Commission on Stock Exchange, demonstrate her expertise and influence in the financial industry. These references have been accordingly included under “References” and can be found in the relevant section.
Now, I would like to specifically address the accusation of “orphan” status. To refute this allegation, we have created a direct link from our company website ("Executive Board of DZ Bank with Vita S. Benkredda". DZ Bank.) to the English Wikipedia entry of Souâd Benkredda. In addition, we will also link to other relevant Wikipedia entries so that the entry can no longer be viewed in isolation.
I hope these measures contribute to classifying the entry as relevant for the Wikipedia community and prevents its deletion. Dzbank-kmmo (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you read WP:COI. Editing with a conflict of interest is not strictly prohibited, but you must stick to WP:NPOV with utmost diligence. By the way, orphan, in Wikipedia lingo, means there are no other articles which link to this one. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reference to WP:COI, which I have read carefully. I understand the importance of complying with WP:NPOV and will ensure that we will make all edits in accordance with this policy. Dzbank-kmmo (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A possibly reliable independent source: fax.net article Gab4gab (talk) 16:58, 7 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! 05:31, 10 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! 06:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Possible COI issues, but [19] and [20] do appear to be non-trivial independent coverage. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator's rationale. One of the sources presented in the weak keep doesn't appear independent (the 40 over 40) and the faz.net could be okay, but I can't completely tell due to language issues. Even assuming it is there's not enough here to keep. SportingFlyer T·C 12:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What makes you say the 40 over 40 source is not independent? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:23, 17 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, Liz Read! Talk! 06:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This article is an orphan and its meeting of GNG is questionable. Referring to rationale of the nominator, the sources in the article are shaky, beyond some standard coverage for corporate businesspeople. DimensionalFusion (talk) 12:31, 24 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Williams (footballer)[edit]

Mario Williams (footballer) (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:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], I assume there is more around than this. Govvy (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    First two sources are 'transfer rumours'; third source is fine; fourth source is the same as 1 & 2 but in less detail; fifth source is a match report. GiantSnowman 21:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes GNG per above sources.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Per above. Barbados internaitonal with ongoing career and first to play pro in Australia A-League Men. Article needs improvement. not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Never played a game in the A-League. Simione001 (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG as the available coverage is not independent or in-depth. The best coverage is the article from the Barbados Football Association, but that is not independent of the subject and doesn't count towards notability. The other coverage is generally routine (match reports, transfer speculation) and not enough to be significant coverage. Jogurney (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Another athlete bio, another 50/50 split of opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the article's subject itself does not inherently meet WP:GNG nor does it make it clear how it does. Moreover, the subject's coverage is mostly routine and there is no outstanding coverage as to warrant an independent article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DimensionalFusion (talk • contribs) 09:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 11:19, 28 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 programs previously broadcast by Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation. Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IBC News 11 O'Clock Report[edit]

IBC News 11 O'Clock Report (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'm unable to find GNG-level sources for this news show. Recommend Redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:04, 24 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! 07:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darkwell[edit]

Darkwell (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 only thing I can find on this band are profiles. Upper Deck Guy (talk) 02:39, 17 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! 02:39, 24 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! 07:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tamashii[edit]

Tamashii (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 notable event. No in-deep coverage of the event. 11 sources, 7 are from the promotion so it's primary source. Also, Post Wrestling and Fightful are just results of the event with no in-deep coverage, so it's WP:ROUTINE. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing found in New Zealand media other than an event notification NealeWellington (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've dig up a Yahoo Article advertising the events, as well as a second that mentions the event in Sydney. Also want to Ping @TheDeviantPro and @KatoKungLee since they've been involved in similar NJPW discussions in the past. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a list type of article covering an ongoing series of events, not an article for a single event, where the sum of the whole is greater than each individual part. There's previews and results and I'm not sure what else is expected here. I added more references, there's more I didn't add and these events are still ongoing so there's going to be continuing coverage. I see no issue with this.KatoKungLee (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - More third party references have been added, as stated above, this is regarding a series of events, with ongoing coverage. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Third party sources were added, but again, it's just WP:ROUTINE coverage. "routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine" --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Page is too small for event for me to be even consider supporting to stay. Im not sure how five routine sources could be considered enough to be notable. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further input regarding routine v non-routine needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Although independent sources have been added, they all fail WP:ROUTINE. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 01:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - More sources have again been added.KatoKungLee (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, sources are just WP:ROUTINE. [26] [27] [28] These are just results, which is WP:ROUTINE. 3 other sources [29] [30] [31] just covers the launch of the brand, which is already sourced. (we have 7 sources for the launch) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      'Just covers the launch of the brand' but this page isn't for a specific event, it is for the brand/event series as a whole, meaning these references would surely be useful in this case? Thief-River-Faller (talk) 11:25, 19 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! 02:38, 24 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Portage Entrepreneurial[edit]

Portage Entrepreneurial (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 a term used in the business field, appears to be started as a DICDEF, then a poor translation of the French term. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and France. Shellwood (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep any perceived lack of clarity in the article, such as the difference between portage entrepreneurial and portage salarial, should not be a reason for deletion. Instead, it should be a reason to seek additional sources and further improve the article. The notability of the concept is high, as it represents an alternative business model in the field of entrepreneurship, specifically for self-employed workers in France. --BoraVoro (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article may be considered notable for Wikipedia because it discusses a specific legal status in French labour law. This concept has gained recognition in media and has been discussed by industry experts and the president of the National Union of Specialized Portage Companies. I think the article should be left for revision and addition --MsWalders (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:24, 17 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! 02:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete the sources do not seem to be reliable for GNG, but it's a bit hard to tell. Given the nature of the concept and the difficulty in establishing notability, I'm not convinced a merge to self-employment or something similar would be appropriate either. Retracting my !vote, though I'm not confident enough to make a rec as to the best non-delete outcome —siroχo 05:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as weak sources in and of themselves shouldn't be the determining factor in whether an article should be deleted, as surely it just means better sources should be searched for. DimensionalFusion (talk) 08:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem for many topics, including this isverifiability and notability. These are vital in making Wikipedia an encyclopedia. Without reliable sources we risk including too much inaccurate information. —siroχo 02:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DimensionalFusion, we use reliable sources to establish notability which is typically the primary determining factor in whether or not articles are Kept, Delete, Merge or Redirected. What do you suggest the determining factor(s) should be, if not notability? Liz Read! Talk! 01:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting changing the determining factors regarding notability, I simply think the article itself could be improved with more sources which would help it to establish the aforementioned notability -DimensionalFusion (talk) 08:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Despite the small number of sources, the article is significant in terms of the criterion of state-building in civil law. This policy direction was also supported by Emmanuel Macron. That is, the interest of the highest branch of government is also present. Leave for editing. --Wyndhan Han (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the preferred english language name for the subject should be "wage portage", in which case we are able to find some english language coverage of the topic, for example "The collaborative spirit at the service of an economic model" in Revue francaise des affaires sociales and "The Impact of New Forms of Self-Employment on Employment Law" in E-Journal of International and Comparative Labour Studies. Although I can't definitively say that the available sources will allow the article to evolve beyond a dicdef, this is a keep but move from me, though I would not oppose a merge to a section in self-employment. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is telling that no editor has added any RS to the article since the AfD began. I think that is simply because none exists. I have been unable to find any RS. Our article has zero RS as well. Our article uses Forbes Brandvoice which states - Forbes BrandVoices® provide business partners direct access to the Forbes audience by allowing them to publish their editorial content to the Forbes site., other non-rs like a company website Les Echos Solutions, and another private company Nexco. I am not clear on how anybody determined that this meets our guidelines for inclusion. Lightburst (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sundari Neeyum Sundaran Naanum (TV series)[edit]

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

Unsourced for 2-3 years. fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:NTVNATL Karnataka (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Keep - enough coverage i think Aspiringeditor1 (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Aspiringeditor1@P.Karthik.95 can't seem to reply to the other comment, the Times of India is usually seen as being unreliable due to accepting payments for positive coverage. Furthermore IMDb is also not reliable and is correctly in the external links section on the article. Furthermore, in my opinion www.exchange4media.com seems to be routine coverage that only summarises the plot of the article, and I'm not sure about the reliability of this source.
Ignoring these, I'll give my view of the remaining sources that have been added:
  • Source 4 is routine coverage that also lists the cast, the director, and a mini plot summary
  • Source 5 seems to be a tabloid source. Ignoring this, only 1 and 1/2 paragraphs talk about the subject and is only speculation of why the serial ended as well as the name of some cast members and director
  • Source 6 is also routine coverage that also lists the cast, the director, and a mini plot summary
  • Source 12 is routine coverage that talks about how the serial is doing as well as pictures of the episode and other minor plot details.
Karnataka (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Karnataka i don’t blame you, but i feel like some articles on ToI actually focus on the topic in question, regardless of notability. Aspiringeditor1 (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was stating that the ToI is unreliable and not the detail of the topic - I linked the page where I got information from (WP:TOI) Karnataka (talk) 06:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to review most recent addition of sources against RS
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:23, 17 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! 02:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, with thanks for the work that has been done on the article since nomination. My reading of WP:TOI and the linked RFC is not that the TOI is excluded from consideration (outside of political topics) but that it should be approached with some caution. I don't see any particular reason for it to be wholly discounted here. While the nom has characterized the Oneindia article in source 12 (now footnote 13) in the article as routine coverage, I think it is sufficiently in-depth that it should not be discounted under WP:ROUTINE (and also, from the little I can glean, there is some interesting commentary on the respective popularities and motivations of the shows involved in that crossover episode). Oneindia is not currently on RSP but a previous discussion on RSN was generally positive. There are numerous other OneIndia articles on the show from the same writer, e.g. [37], [38], [39]. There doesn't seem to be a lot to work with here, and I don't have the expertise to fully evaluate the sources, but overall it seems that there is enough to likely meet the GNG. -- Visviva (talk) 18:41, 25 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 Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege. (I assume this is the Merge target being suggested) Liz Read! Talk! 01:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caveira (Rainbow Six Siege)[edit]

Caveira (Rainbow Six Siege) (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's reception is strictly about a gameplay element and not a character itself, in fact that is the sole crux of the article and feels akin to WP:GAMEGUIDE as this means next to nothing to a casual reader. The bikini/lingerie discussion also relates more to the person doing the cosplay than the character itself, and one of the cosplay examples is from an official contest by Ubisoft. Lastly the Controversy section is more development for the game itself, and also offers no discussion on the character itself. Trying to do research with WP:BEFORE also turned up nothing either actually discussing Caveira as a character. Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can see a list of characters being a thing for sure. That said, it's hard to fathom individual operators being standalone notable. This is literally a page ripped straight from FANDOM. People put an intense amount of effort into this, but you can't make notable what isn't actually notable - it is a bit flummoxing that someone would have looked at this minor character and assumed they were standalone article material. I have no prejudice towards the material being preserved in user-space if someone wishes to work on a list article in the future. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - definitely a REFBOMB and prose bloat situation to make it look like there's a lot more here than there really is. Better represented in an article of another aspect of the franchise. Sergecross73 msg me 18:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge as compromise. The reception of the character in the first subsection is a list of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, and does not meet the standard for WP:SIGCOV. The rest of the reception section is off topic. It should be removed, or at best, adds trivial mentions about other topics that don't really demonstrate notability for this character. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge per nom. Also, controversy section isn't talking about the character directly. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 23:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, was unable to find adequate coverage to demonstrate GNG. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:00, 30 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 Tornadoes of 2001. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2001 Myrtle Beach tornadoes[edit]

2001 Myrtle Beach tornadoes (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 tornado can easily be incorporated into Tornadoes of 2001. Even though a lot of people were injured, there were no fatalities. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 00:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC) on behalf of 144.178.5.26[reply]

Keep There may have been only two tornadoes here, but there were more tornadoes that were reported, but not confirmed. They're are also plenty of non-tornadic impacts that can be added. ChessEric 22:49, 25 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) Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dedication[edit]

Dedication (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 current dedication main page is mostly a series of redirects; each section starts with a link to a full article on the referenced topic. The page summary for Dedication that exists does not address the overall concept, instead addressing the contents of one of the sub-pages. I have requested that the disambiguation page be moved to the mainspace page. This page needs to be dispositioned; if it is to move somewhere else it needs substantial help. Darker Dreams (talk) 01:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw AfD Keep without prejudice, and move to Dedication (ritual). (If someone wants to open a new AfD after that, go for it). —siroχo 04:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to withdraw the AfD. It's a reasonable suggestion, and voting to Keep (without prejudice to future AfD after a move) does the same thing while hopefully provoking additional relevant discussion. Darker Dreams (talk) 07:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright I've updated to a keep !vote. My main motivation here is to facilitate your good idea of moving the disambiguation page to improve navigation. —siroχo 07:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Judaism. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep under the new title once the move is complete. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • By all means move, but then keep under the new title. The article occupies a valuable middle-space between detailed articles on each specific ritual, and a mere unexplained list of rituals as would come from a traditional dab page. It is valuable to have an overview of the diversity of dedication rituals that exist. Elemimele (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep but move under the new proposed title. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 20:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable topic and useful summary overview but move to Dedication (ritual) as proposed above to make way for disambiguation page, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:27, 25 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_24&oldid=1163094672"