Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 12 May 14 >

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 keep‎. ✗plicit 04:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanda Private Game Reserve[edit]

Thanda Private Game Reserve (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)

Advertising for travel, undisclosed WP:PE. The only in-line source, is to a travel agency advertising this game reserve. Under External links, there are five more travel sites. Everything about this one, is put together like an advertisement. — Maile (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. — Maile (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. I prodded this rather than nominating it myself out of a sense of caution, but with more time to try to identify sources I am still coming up empty.~TPW 13:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I found a few sources from Gbooks and TNT'd the article. There might be more. SWinxy (talk) 04:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per the work of SWinxy in removing PROMO and locating additional sources Jack4576 (talk) 05:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sockpuppet and policy-contrary claims ignored. Closed as keep based on strength of arguments. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nikko Smith[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Nikko Smith (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)

BLARed due to lack of apparent notability but it turns out there was a past AfD in 2009 so we can't do that. Same reasoning still applies from there: from the sources I saw in my BEFORE search, he hardly gets mentioned even in articles about his season of American Idol. Redirect to American Idol (season 4)#Top 12 finalists. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Although (1) its plausible this entry is or may one day be of interest to Wikipedian fans of American Idol, (2) the claims contained in the article are supported by reliable sources ...
... the lack of coverage, both in-depth, and assessed collectively means that this entry doesn't meet SIGCOV requirements of GNG or an SNG
Sadly, this is an instance where applying guidelines requires destruction of a knowledge source, irrespective of other considerations; including collateral damage to this website's wider mission and purpose Jack4576 (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do keep in mind that there is already a brief bio on the subject at the redirect target I suggested above, and that can be expanded with the sources presented here. If you prefer a merger, and it sounds like you might, then you should consider that option. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I should've voted Merge QuietHere. But see AryKun's findings below. Jack4576 (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to suggested target per above. AryKun (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is significant coverage found about him on Newspapers.com, including from St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Part 1, Part 2), The Belleville News-Democrat (Part 1, Part 2) and The Atlanta Constitution [1] (roughly half of it is prose, rest Q&A)Alvaldi (talk) 13:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jack4576 @Bgsu98 @AryKun Mind taking a look at the above sources? Alvaldi (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well done. Of the five pieces you've shared, two are reporting, and three are interviews. All of them go into depth about the subject.
    Notability isn't temporary. This is clearly significant coverage on any fair assessment.
    Great work. Keep. Jack4576 (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    None of those showed up in my search so I'm glad you found 'em. Certainly looks like plenty enough to keep this around after all. Withdrawn. Thanks Alvaldi! QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Von Smith[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Von Smith (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)

Absolutely fails WP:NSINGER. Does not qualify for PROD. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Although (1) its plausible this entry is or may one day be of interest to Wikipedian fans of American Idol, or the small number of fans this singer may have, and (2) the claims contained in the article are supported by reliable sources ...
... the lack of coverage, both in-depth, and assessed collectively means that this entry doesn't meet SIGCOV requirements of GNG or an SNG
Sadly, this is an instance where applying guidelines requires destruction of a knowledge source, irrespective of other considerations; including collateral damage to this website's wider mission and purpose Jack4576 (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jack4576 (talk · contribs), would you review the sources I posted? Thank you. Cunard (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep He's mentioned in Billboard [2] in 2020, I think it's just barely fine for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

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

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Sources

    1. Foley, James A. (2007-03-08). "YouTube Gives Singer Instant Celebrity". The Augusta Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.

      The article notes: "You can attribute Vaughn Smith's success in part to his phenomenal vocal talent. You can credit the other part to YouTube, the Internet phenomenon. The 20-year-old singer, whose stage name is Von Lee Smith, has gained a tremendous amount of sudden acclaim for his rendition of the song And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going from the hit movie Dreamgirls, which since November has received more than 215,000 hits on the popular video-sharing Web site www.youtube.com.Mr. Smith flew to New York recently to appear on The View, where Rosie O'Donnell insisted he perform the popular song. ... Mr. Smith comes from a musical background. His father, Doug, was in the 1960s rock band Notorious Noblemen, who were inducted into the Iowa Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1998. His mother was a singer on the Kansas City jazz scene from the late 1970s to the early 1990s."

    2. Klepper, David (2000-06-07). "A star is born - online - Greenwood boy in talent search". The Kansas City Star. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.

      The article notes: "A 13-year-old Greenwood boy is singing his way to the top of an Internet talent competition, thanks to a rousing performance and a little bit of luck. Vaughn Smith, who will enter the eighth grade at Pleasant Lea Junior High School in the fall, has reached the quarterfinals of an Internet talent search sponsored by Ed McMahon, who was host of the television show "Star Search." ... Vaughn has performed most of his life, singing at school, in choirs and with his mother, Val Smith, a professional vocalist and organist. Still, performing on the Internet is different."

    3. Penn, Steve (2006-03-28). "Singer seems set for stardom". The Kansas City Star. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.

      The article notes: "Yet, as Smith, of Lee's Summit, began to melodically weave his way through a rendition of "Since I Fell for You," by Lenny Welsh, he made a connection with the crowd. Reaction began to grow. ... Backstage, he was deluged by well-wishers and autograph seekers. Singer Myra Taylor, 89, couldn't believe her ears. "I've been around the world a couple of times and back again," Taylor said. "And that was one of the finest performances I've ever seen." Singing runs in Smith's blood. His mother, Val Smith, was once a local jazz and blues singer. His father, Doug Smith, was a rock 'n' roll singer in Iowa. Vaughn himself started exploring soul music at age 12."

    4. Pen, Steve (2008-04-24). "Steve Penn: Young crooner ready to spread wings". The Kansas City Star. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.

      The article notes: "Smith is the Lee's Summit crooner who became an overnight sensation when someone posted a clip of him singing Jennifer Hudson's "And I'm Telling You" on YouTube. The performance got so many hits (it still does) that it landed him a TV singing debut on "The View." Now Smith has landed a recording contract with hip-hop singer Akon. In fact, Smith is moving to Atlanta next month to complete a CD he's been working on with Akon. So far, 15 songs have been recorded."

    5. Watrous, Monica (2009-03-04). "Get up to speed on our latest Idol contestant". The Kansas City Star. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.

      The article notes: "As Greenwood, Mo., native Von Smith ascends the ranks on the eighth season of "American Idol," you probably have a lot of questions. ... Smith was home-schooled and acquired his musical chops from a jazz/lounge-singing mama, Valinda, and a rock-star dad, Doug, he said in a 2008 interview on modernvocaltraining.com. At 13, he lost in the finals to a female country singer on Ed McMahon's "Next Big Star," according to that interview."

    6. Poorman, Dan (2017-11-21). "Crank up Postmodern Jukebox". The Post-Standard. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.

      The review notes: "When Von Smith took the stage, in his signature straw hat and suspenders, he turned an ’80s rock ‘n’ roll classic (“Sweet Child O’ Mine”) into a bluesy big band classic. Again, reading it, you might say, “Alright” and continue sipping your coffee, but to hear Smith’s velvety runs, cartoonishly good range and singular stage antics is, as the old folks would say, “something else.” Smith made extensive use of his comic rubber face again on Justin Timberlake’s “Cry Me a River,” where, in a truly dynamic vocal tag, he had Ithaca living on a weird plane between hilarity and astonishment."

    7. Bream, Jon (2019-01-20). "Pick Six". Star Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.

      The article notes: "Postmodern Jukebox. I discovered the group on YouTube while looking at Von Smith and Joey Cook, who are among the rotating artists in this ensemble. I really like their vintage arrangements of pop songs and am excited to see them Feb. 6 at the State Theatre."

    8. Wilson, Gail (2007-03-04). "In Box / Our Picks of the Week". The Press of Atlantic City. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.

      The article notes: "Jennifer Hudson's rendition of "And I Am Telling You" in "Dreamgirls" prompted many to go to YouTube in search of her performance. But rather than see Hudson sing the tune, up popped a 19-year-old "skinny, white boy" from Kansas City, Von Lee Smith. Little did Smith know that when he put his performance on YouTube in October, Hudson's upcoming performance would be such a hit. Smith made his first national TV appearance on "The View" Feb. 27. His soulful rendition of the "Dreamgirls" song has received more than 255,000 views."

    9. "What's new in town, what's making news". The Kansas City Star. 2008-04-30. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.

      The article notes: "Von Lee Smith of Lee's Summit landed a recording contract with Grammy-winning hip-hop artist Akon. Smith became an overnight sensation when someone posted a clip of him singing Jennifer Hudson's "And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going" on YouTube. The performance got so many hits it earned him a TV singing debut on "The View.""

    10. Tsai, Joyce (2007-02-27). "Local singer to be on View - The 20-year-old from Lee's Summit is an online celebrity for a "Dreamgirls" song". The Kansas City Star. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.

      The article notes: "At age 13, Vaughn Smith belted out song after song on Ed McMahon's talent show "Next Big Star." He made it to the finals but didn't win. ... Smith, whose stage name is Von Lee Smith, will sing his rendition of the "Dreamgirls" song "And I Am Telling You I m Not Going," which has made him a celebrity on YouTube.com."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Von Lee Smith (also known as Vaughn Smith) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No references from independent, reliable sources brought forth in this BLP discussion. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Avi Weinroth[edit]

Avi Weinroth (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)

Looking for sources for this unreferenced living-person biography has been usuccessful. Looking at Google Books, Internet Archive, Newspapers.com, Gale resources, Oxford reference, the internet at large, and NewspaperARCHIVE.com. I did find mention of his involvement in several cases in Israel, but insufficient info to support notability. He is mentioned in a couple of legal repositories, such as the Martindale-Hubbell International Law Directory and an archived page from Bloomburg; these are based on submitted info from those listed, however. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Although (1) its plausible this entry is or may one day be of interest to Isreali Wikipedians, or those with an interest in law, and that (2) it appears from what Ceyockey has written above the article could plausibly be re-written to make claims referenced by sources;
... the lack of coverage, both in-depth, and assessed collectively means that this subject doesn't meet SIGCOV requirements of GNG or an SNG
Sadly, this is an instance where applying guidelines requires destruction of a knowledge source, irrespective of other considerations; including collateral damage to this website's wider mission and purpose.
Jack4576 (talk) 05:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You can sea many titles he authored in Hollis search (Harvard Library). Tzahy (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that, but that alone isn't enough to meet the SIGCOV or NACADEMIC requirements. Do any of the books meet the criteria in those guidelines? I'd rather keep this entry if possible Jack4576 (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, I'm not familiar with the requirements and I'm not sure I will have enough time to answer. Tzahy (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay. The requirements are awful and have a bias toward destroying knowledge on non-Anglospheric subjects. You can still copy-paste this article's contents to the website everybodywiki.com though, it won't get deleted over there. Jack4576 (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not having info on WP is not "destroying knowledge". The internet is vast. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The internet exists" does not make deleting information not deleting information Jack4576 (talk) 07:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To ignore the fact that Wikipedia is the primary point of access for most people to access tertiary sources is pretty obtuse. Deleting knowledge from Wikipedia makes that knowledge less accessible. This description really isn't up for debate. What you think of the normative aspects is a separate issue. Jack4576 (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, as I've told you before, feel free to create your own online encyclopedia with any notability criteria you choose. You could even be the sole admin and have final say on deletion of any articles. LibStar (talk) 08:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm fine with that constructive editing can include removing information. Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_on_discussion_pages#Meta-reasoning makes sense to several Wikipedians you may encounter. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Heart (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shanghai police database leak[edit]

Shanghai police database leak (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 sources are not too great and the article itself is fairly incoherent. Article would need an entire rewrite to improve. Dawnbails (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn; mistake on my end when remembering a deletion policy. Dawnbails (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Dawnbails (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. There is sufficient notability here and implied significance; appears to be an unfolding issue. If anyone fluent in Mandarin can moderate the sources and restructure the article; I think someone just needs to be bold and edit it for quality rather than deletion. Cliffordben1994 (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple high-profile in-depth coverage from mainstream outlets as noted by JML1148
Please don't make AfD nominations like this. If an article needs a re-write, tag it. Jack4576 (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, in this case, it was sheer laziness that stopped them from doing a 30-second Google search, if that, and find multiple reliable sources. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My main point of the nomination was more so that the article was incoherent; however, I did remember a deletion policy wrong and that's my bad. Feel free to close. Dawnbails (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – bradv 20:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Good Mythical Morning episodes[edit]

List of Good Mythical Morning episodes (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)

We usually don't have lists of videos released by YouTube channels. As has been noted in some of the edit summaries, the titles of videos aren't even fixed, as some of their titles have been changed, which have to be manually corrected, which is a serious issue to maintain the list, given that this list includes over 2,000 videos. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As for whether it meets WP:NLIST in that the topic has been covered by multiple reliable sources (or there's enough reliable sources about individual episodes to merit a list like this), that is quite dubious. At a glance I see some sources from Huffington Post and The Inquisitr, but the majority of the page is unsourced, suggesting that this topic may not meet the guidelines. Unless editors find more sources, I'd suggest either rewriting this article entirely to only include individual episodes that have received coverage from reliable sources, or perhaps redirecting/merging to the parent article and including a much more concise section of episodes there. PantheonRadiance (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my issue is that I don't think GMM episodes pass WP:NLIST in same way that something like a list of TV show episodes would. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I understand that. Not to say this is notable or non-notable, but regardless of its notability, doing a WP:BEFORE for sources will be extremely challenging. GMM may be notable, but sorting out which sources cover individual episodes significantly or not is another issue altogether. I'm partial to a redirect or merge per WP:ATD, but I'm going to abstain from a definitive vote until editors (myself included) do their own BEFORE searches. PantheonRadiance (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I don't see the distinction between GMM and television as particularly meaningful anymore when a webseries has TV-like production values, given the cultural change in content production and streaming in recent years.
Whether this passes notability regardless is a separate issue Jack4576 (talk) 07:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily disagree, but in my mind GMM is something like a gameshow, and we generally delete lists of gameshow episodes e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Deal or No Deal (U.S. game show) episodes. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GMM is nothing like a game show, what?! - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 20:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean literally like a gameshow, but in the fact there are very long runs of episodes that individually are not very notable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither are most TV episodes, on most TV episode list articles, the only thing cited is the average viewercount with regards to U.S. households. The rest is pretty much self-verifiable. However, Good Mythical Morning as a whole is still notable, and does receive a decent amount of coverage, especially when celebrity guests are in an episode. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 20:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but most non soap opera and non-game show tv series don't have thousands of episodes. There's a reason why we don't have lists of soap opera episodes. I'm not opposed to a more cut down list including only celebrity guest episodes, like the PewDiePie videography, which only includes a small fraction of his output. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with this. Only having a cut down list would make the article's entire existence redundant. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 21:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, late night shows have a significant amount of episodes, for example. See The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon and List of The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon episodes. This is what I'd most compare GMM to. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 21:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the volume of Late night talkshow episodes is comparable to those of GMM, but those are much more likely to have received individual coverage by newspapers and the like e.g. [3] [4]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GMM receives views in the millions. Covering every single episode of GMM would be too much output for publications to cover on a significant level, especially since episodes air every day of the week, that's perhaps why they don't bother. But there are still over 70 references in the article which suggests notability. Having 2,000 citations for every single episode as well would be too much and would significantly increase the page's load time, not to mention more than likely exceed Wikipedia's post-expand include size limit. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 21:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GMM is much less broadly culturally relevant or notable than late night talkshows, which is why newspapers don't cover it, not because there is too much content to cover. Many of these references (e.g. [5]) are only passing mentions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers are a dying media consumption format and shouldn't be used as a valid metric for determining notability, IMO, but that's a subject for another day. It should be noted that articles like these don't need significant sourcing to be notable or verifiable when episode titles and air dates can be independently verified, as they are publicly available. GMM has always been a severly popular show on YouTube, and one of their episodes received over 32 million views, funnily enough talking about game show cheaters, and a significant amount of their episodes have received millions of views in general outside of that. But it should be noted that individual YouTube channels, regardless of what a channel focuses on or how popular it is, don't typically receive significant media coverage for every little thing they do. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 21:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Newspaper coverage is literally how most people (except academics) are determined to be notable on Wikipedia. The idea that Newspapers ... shouldn't be used as a valid metric for determining notability shows that your understanding of notability guidelines is very out of step with the Wikipedia consensus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was merely an opinion of mine, wasn't trying to align myself with Wikipedia's consensus as the consensus itself is out of tune with modern standards, in my opinion. I have never read a newspaper in my life, I do read publications who do publish newspapers, but I never read newspapers themselves, and presumably neither do most people part of Generation Z, presumably. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 21:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Evelyn Marie: As a Gen Zer I don't read newspapers either besides online articles from The New York Times for Wikipedia purposes. But I'm sure you do realize that reliable sources come in all shapes and forms outside of newspapers, right? Otherwise, that Find Sources banner at the top of this AfD would only include a newspapers button. PantheonRadiance (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm well aware, I was strictly referring to how Hemiauchenia only strictly referred to newspapers in their replies. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 22:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Good Mythical Morning is in my mind a talk show, similar to The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, in that it is a long running episodic series and has similar traits to a talk show / late night show. Good Mythical Morning has received significant coverage since it premiered in 2012, and even despite there being over 2,000 episodes there is also significant amounts of prose in the article to warrant having the article exist. Not to mention, Good Mythical Morning isn't just a YouTube show. It also airs on the Roku Channel as well as of a couple months ago, and in my eyes its a TV show but in web form. So i'm saying keep here. Sourcing is a minor issue, but that can be rectified by adding citations in the prose, but even then the article still has over 70 references which suggests notability regardless. However it should be noted that even TV show episode lists on Wikipedia typically only have references for the viewer count for U.S. households or certain other metrics (e.g. as seen on List of The Vampire Diaries episodes), everything else is pretty much self-verifiable on any search engine. And to be honest, like I mentioned in a comment reply, having references for 2,000+ episodes would hit the post-expand include size limit pretty quickly, not to mention signiicantly increase the article size, so thats just not feasible. But notability is not an issue, GMM has and still does receives a decent amount of coverage, especially when they have episodes that have celebrity guests but even outside that GMM is still notable and receives views in the millions even today. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 21:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After having thought about it further, due to the significant lack of sourcing, and the fact that this article gets very few page views (only 2,000 in the past 30 days), it is clear that this specific episode list is not that useful, nor is it adequately sourced. And due to the lack of available sourcing aside from coverage on GMM celebrity guest episodes, there is no valid evidence that would result in this page being significantly improved to meet WP:GNG, and I honestly do not find value in only listing the most significant GMM episodes in this article personally. We can't rely on strictly primary sources, or episode aggregators like IMDb for sources. So, despite my initial sadness, I find reason to believe that this article is not notable enough to be encyclopedic in its current state. While the article does list a couple episodes that were removed from the show's episode catalog, it was few and far between, and there are playlists on YouTube that contain all publicly available Good Mythical Morning episodes. Having this massive article containing over 2,000 episodes is just a bit too unwieldy. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 23:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1: Ignoring the WP:OSE argument, episodic TV shows like The Vampire Diaries often have their lists of episodes split into articles about their particular seasons (ex. The Vampire Diaries (season 1)), and in those articles of a show's season, there are usually reliable sources describing the season and/or individual episodes on their own. In that case, the parent lists (ex. List of The Vampire Diaries episodes) serve more as a repository or guide. Even the Critical Role series has articles for individual seasons (or "campaigns"). The only way I could reasonably foresee this article being kept is if we split each season into individual articles, but even then this leads to another issue.
    2: How exactly are these seasons "really" defined? Did people just take this information from playlists of the videos, or are there actual reliable sources that confirm the delineation of each season? If you say the former, well congratulations. You just identified the second problem with this list. Not only do the episodes potentially have little reliable coverage, there's also a serious issue with original research seeping in the article. If we can't even verify the seasons of the show without resorting to either YouTube, IMDB or original research, that's a red flag in and of itself.
    3: "GMM receives views in the millions. Covering every single episode of GMM would be too much output for publications to cover on a significant level, especially since episodes air every day of the week, that's perhaps why they don't bother" That's literally the exact reason why this article is brought up for deletion in the first place - there's a potential lack of reliable sources that cover the topic as a whole per WP:NLIST. Popularity does not equal notability, because it's too subjective of a metric to properly define in an encyclopedic sense. No matter what topic, this site requires coverage of it in reliable sources. I'm not denying that many of the episodes have received coverage. However, including such a long list of episodes which a large portion being unverifiable just doesn't sit right with me. I won't vote Delete because I still think this has potential, but I think I'm gonna need a much stronger argument, preferably with actual sources, to sway my opinion to an unconditional Keep as it is. PantheonRadiance (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding issue 2, they are defined by Mythical's own season definitions - they specifically announce when a season ends and when a new season starts, same as how a TV series has its seasons announced. Original research doesn't matter in this instance when the seasons are announced by Mytical / Rhett & Link on social media and elsewhere. I don't even see why or how thats even a valid issue. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 22:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So now we're going into non-independent, primary source territory. Better, but we're still not making it to Notability Island anytime soon. Sure, primary doesn't mean bad and it can be used in certain contexts, but it doesn't really add to notability. Also, most media outlets typically write articles on notable TV shows whenever the creators announce a new season, which work as good secondary coverage for episodes. If GMM has sources like that whenever they announce a season, that would definitely help this article's case. I'm still looking for sources like that right now but haven't found much yet.
    Also, I understand what you meant earlier with talking about sources; I should've addressed you both. PantheonRadiance (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am changing my vote to Delete. See my updated statement above. :) - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 23:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, thank you for your responses. Personally I'd be comfortable voting a Redirect to GMM as an alternative to deletion, in hopes that someone in the future discovers that there's enough sources to create a more encyclopedic list of episodes for it. PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @PantheonRadiance: YouTube channels don't get much coverage - unless something significant changes and GMM blows up in popularity again (as the show does receive far less views now than it did back during its peak, before YouTube's stupid algorithm changes along with viewers just growing out of it), I don't see a valid reasoning that could bring this article back while being adequately sourced, sadly. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 10:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 National Premier Leagues Western Australia#Clubs. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Armadale SC[edit]

Armadale SC (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:NTEAM due to lack of WP:SIGCOV, and has severe tone and neutrality issues — due to editing by several users who appear to have a connection to the subject, it reads more like a flyer than an encyclopedic article. {{Lemondoge|Talk|Contributions}} 20:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've addressed some of the NPOV issues and improved the neutrality of the article.
Satisfaction of SIGCOV creates a presumption that a subject is notable; but subjects that do not meet SIGCOV can still be notable.
Reasons I think this subject still is nevertheless notable include (1) the prominence of this club to the WA local community (as can be seen in a number of independent sources now referenced), (2) the size of this club at a local level, (3) the reported success this club has had at the amateur level in Australia
I agree it probably fails WP:NTEAM but still think it is compliant with GNG. Jack4576 (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Source
Primary 1. "Alfred Skeet Oval". Armadale Soccer Club. Archived from the original on 26 November 2020. Retrieved 1 January 2021.
Routine mention in sports news, not SIGCOV 2. ^ "Australia Cup produces goals galore as Victorian and South Australian clubs progress". 10 play. 22 July 2022. Retrieved 10 May 2023.
Routine mention in sports news about a game, not SIGCOV 3. ^ garethmorgan (27 March 2023). "Youngsters maintain 100% start with thrilling win". Perth Glory. Retrieved 10 May 2023.
Primary 4. ^ "Armadale Soccer Club".
Primary 5. ^ Jump up to:a b c d "About page - Armadale soccer club".
Primary 6. ^ Armadale Soccer Club Official Matchday Programme. Armadale Football Club. 21 July 2022.
Stats 7. ^ WA State Cup Finals Day 2022. Football West. 24 July 2022.
Primary 8. ^ "First Team Coaches and Staff". Armadale Soccer Club. Archived from the original on 2 February 2017. Retrieved 29 January 2017.
Routine mention in sports news about a game, not SIGCOV 9. ^ Simcox, Peter (14 July 2018). "Jackson double brings Armadale cup glory". Football West. Archived from the original on 15 September 2018. Retrieved 1 January 2021.
Database 10. ^ Jump up to:a b c "Club Directory : A – E". footballwa.net. Retrieved 1 January 2021.
Routine mention in sports news about a player, not SIGCOV 11. ^ Davutovic, David (5 June 2018). "WA's World Cup star still a larrikin at heart". perthnow. Retrieved 1 January 2021.
Primary sources and mentions in routine sports news does not demonostrate notability. BEFORE showed nothing and the keep votes provide no sources.  // Timothy :: talk  04:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 EduCap#Catherine B. Reynolds Foundation. There is consensus that this subject cannot exist as a standalone page. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NYU Catherine B. Reynolds Program for Social Entrepreneurship[edit]

NYU Catherine B. Reynolds Program for Social Entrepreneurship (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 academic program. Webpage is a deadlink, so it is likely over with no notability established. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Although (1) its plausible this entry is or may one day be of value to (some) Wikipedians ...
... the lack of coverage, both in-depth, and assessed collectively means that this entry doesn't meet SIGCOV requirements of GNG or an SNG. I can see that the users above have made reasonable WP:BEFORE searches yet none were found
Sadly, this is an instance where applying guidelines requires destruction of a knowledge source, irrespective of other considerations; including collateral damage to this website's wider mission and purpose Jack4576 (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The arguments to delete are both stronger and more numerous here; at least a few of the provided sources are clearly inadmissible. I say this, for the record, despite my personal feeling that a conglomerate of this size ought to have enough source material. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HDC Group[edit]

HDC Group (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:NCORP, WP:SIRS. scope_creepTalk 23:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Based on (lack of) sourcing, this does not seem to be notable.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 21:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Here are a few more sources: [6], [7], [8]. Does it for me but if there is still a consensus to delete, a merge or redirect to Hyundai Group needs to be considered as an WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 1 above is press-release and fails WP:SIRS as not being independent of the subject.
  • Ref 2 is a passing mention. Fails WP:SIRS as not indepth.
  • Ref 3 is not independent as interviews. Fails WP:ORGIND. scope_creepTalk 09:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1/ I don't see that. The article has a byline. 2/ It is a short article. Passing mention usually refers to a brief mention in a longer article. 3/ Though there are quotes, I wouldn't characterized this as an interview. ~Kvng (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources added by Eastmain (except the last one) seem sufficient in establishing notability. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you say such a thing when its so obvious that the references added to the article all fail WP:NCORP. I will go throught the refs tommorrow. scope_creepTalk 22:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as a source review is promised.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per the above discussion Jack4576 (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You only seem to started attending Afd since May, apart from a couple in 2020. !voting keep on everything. scope_creepTalk 11:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lets examine the references for this article. Per the references:

Looking at the references above:

The article was created during that period when any old junk could be used to source it and accepted and this is reflected in the very poor quality of the references. They are as routine and basic as it possible to get and they fail WP:NCORP at a number of levels. While this is a public company and the consensus is to keep such articles, in these articles types, the references still must satisfy WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 11:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't these initials stand for "Hyundai Development Company"? It is a logical redirect in my opinion. Lightburst (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article says it was spun off from Hyundai and they're no longer affiliated. But now I see we also have an article on HDC Hyundai Development Company which says something completely different. So I don't know - you may be right. – bradv 22:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A brief comment: If there is to be a redirect, there should be some mention or explanation of this topic on the target page. Redirecting, for example, "HDC" to Hyundai Group implies that they are either synonymous or that one is contained within the other; if they are separate entities that at one point shared a name or collaborated, a redirect without any mention of "HDC" on the target page would be a little misleading. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A large number of sources that each fail WP:SIRS for different reasons is no substitute for good sourcing. Since nobody has been able to find any source that actually meets the criteria for establishing notability, I don't see how this can be considered to meet that threshold. There is no doubt that many of the available sources could be used to verify individual claims in an article, but none establish notability to the extent that is required for standalone articles. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Thunder Child[edit]

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

A minor plot element in The War of the Worlds that doesn't merit a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. In the field of science fiction literature this is the canonical example of human forces getting in a minor win early on. Thunder Child is the trope namer. kencf0618 (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been reading science fiction for over half a century, and I've never heard of this so-called trope. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: neither the nominator, nor anyone else, have provided assurances that a reasonable search has been made for additional sources per WP:BEFORE as to whether this subject is an independently notable subject
I'm willing to change my vote to delete if assurances are provided that those searches were made Jack4576 (talk) 08:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (edit conflict) There's at least some academic discussion in Young, Garry (2014). "On the indignity of killer robots". Ethics and Information Technology. 37. Springer.; and Otjen, Nathaniel. "Energy Anxiety and Fossil Fuel Modernity in H.G. Wells's The War of the Worlds". Journal of Modern Literature. 43 (2). Indiana University Press: 118–133.. These discuss the HMS Thunder Child and it's crew's "humanity" in contrast to that of the aliens', and how the technology of the Thunder Child is contrasted to those of the aliens', respectively. There's also a passing mention in Ferreiro, Larrie D. (2011). "The Social History of the Bulbous Bow". Technology and Culture. 52 (2). where it's described as an example of how ramming in this era was "armchair tactics".
    Second, there appears to be plenty of coverage in The Wellsian, for example Cook, Tim (2014). G. Geek Wells: Evolving the Engineer from the War of the Worlds to "The Land of Ironclads". H. G. Wells Society. pp. 37–68. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help), but I'm not too certain how rigorously academic it is as a publication.
    Finally, I'm seeing a bunch of further hits in what are certainly RS, but to which I don't have personal access to evaluate the depth of coverage. See, for example, March-Russell, Paul (2015). ""Into the interstices of time"". Transport in British Fiction. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 167–181.; Hume, Kathryn (1983). "The Hidden Dynamics of "The War of the Worlds"". Philological Quarterly. 62 (2). University of Iowa.; and Gomel, Elana (2014). Science Fiction, Alien Encounters and the Ethics of Posthumanism: Beyond the Golden Rule. Palgrave Macmillan.. If anyone has access to those, or any of the plenty more hits in Google Scholar/Books I can't access, I'd appreciate a quick summary of the depth of coverage.
    Even ignoring the sources I can't access, overall, my quick survey leaves me fairly confident that there's enough here for a GNG-pass based on the academic sources alone. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm not a very literary analytical person, I've added some prose into the article based on the above. Ljleppan (talk) 11:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As well as the above from Ljleppan, between the book, the song and the expy Thunderchild bit being a staple of numerous adaptations this is fairly solid notability-wise IMHO, the thing's probably had more written about it than a good 90% of actual Royal Navy ships. Article is a bit crufty but I've been reading Marvel Comics articles all morning so crufty is relative. Plus it ring-fences all the bits and bobs away from the article on the book. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Adams[edit]

Kristin Adams (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:NSINGER, PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: neither the nominator, nor anyone else, have provided assurances that a reasonable search has been made for additional sources per WP:BEFORE
I'm willing to change my vote to delete if assurances are provided that those searches were made Jack4576 (talk) 08:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid justification. Timothytyy (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a valid procedural objection. This nominator has nominated at least a dozen pages all with similarly vague rationales and provided no evidence that they've followed BEFORE. The nominator has not responded to concerns raised in ongoing discussions. Many, if not most, of the nominations are already heading towards keep. This increasingly looks like a disruptive mass nomination. pburka (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

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

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Sources

    1. Rushfield, Richard (2011). American Idol: The Untold Story. New York: Hachette Books. ISBN 978-1-4013-9652-7. Retrieved 2023-05-14 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Kristin Holt had made it as far as the semifinals on season 1. To Idol audiences, the former cheerleader and beauty queen had been distinguished for sliding under the judges' desk when she raced to hug them after her audition. After being eliminated, Holt did some on-air work with a local TV news show, getting a taste for hosting. When she read that Dunkleman would not be returning, she called up Lythgoe and requested his slot. "Come on the road with us, cohost," he told her. "We'll see how you do." There's some confusion, a decade later, what role Holt was signed on for, but media reports at the time make clear that she was brought aboard as the new cohost. After shooting some initial segments wearing the cohost's hat, when the audition episodes aired, Holt was relegated to the role of correspondent, filing occasional pieces on life at the Idol mansion."

      The book notes: "Ryan Seacrest's almost cohost, season 1 contender Kristin Holt, can now be seen as a correspondent on nerd central G4 network."

    2. Peele, Britton (2017-02-20). "Former Dallas Cowboys cheerleader and 'American Idol' contestant goes viral with lip-sync video". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.

      The article notes: "Fans of Dallasites on reality TV may recognize his wife, Kristin. But they might know her by her maiden name, Kristin Holt. The Plano-born actress, who went to school at Texas Christian University, was once a morning co-host on WILD 100.3 in Dallas, was a top 30 finalist in the first season of American Idol and spent some time as a Dallas Cowboys cheerleader. She has also spent time on TV in a variety of other locations, including regular appearances on the former TV network G4, where she hosted the show Cheat!"

    3. Scales, Kylee (2017-02-14). "Indianapolis couple's hilarious Valentine's Day lip sync video goes viral". WXIN. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.

      The article notes: "Kristin and Danny Adams have been married for eight years and have two kids, ages 6 and 3. In June 2015, Danny and Kristin were singing to a song on the radio when they decided it would be fun to create a lip sync video together. So they filmed and posted their first video. ... They posted the Valentine’s Day video to their Facebook page on Monday, and they already have nearly 10 million views."

    4. Porter, Rick (2002-11-23). "'Idol' Contestant Goes From Loser to Co-host". Zap2it. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14 – via Orlando Sentinel.

      The article notes: "Kristin Holt, a semi-finalist on the show last summer, will be back for Idol’s second edition in January. Instead of singing, however, she’ll join Ryan Seacrest as a co-host of the show. She replaces Brian Dunkleman. Holt, a Texas native and onetime Dallas Cowboys cheerleader, returned home after not making the final 10. After hearing that the show was still without a co-host for Seacrest, she says she decided to give the producers a call."

    5. Skinner, Paige (2017-04-11). "13 Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders Who Went On to Bigger and Sometimes Better Things". Dallas Observer. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.

      THe article notes: "Kristin Holt. DCC 2000. Who needs Kelly Clarkson when you have Kristin Holt, now Adams? She competed on the first season of American Idol and now she has a successful YouTube channel with her husband, where they vlog about their family and lip sync to popular songs."

    6. Osborne, Ryan (2017-02-20). "TCU alum's Valentine's-themed lip sync video goes viral". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.

      The article notes: "TCU alum Kristin Adams and her husband Danny have grown a decent following making goofy videos for their two young children. ... Kristin Adams — formerly Kristin Holt — is from Plano. And before graduating from TCU, she was a Dallas Cowboys cheerleader, according to her personal website."

    7. Mendoza, Manuel (2002-06-18). "Superstardom, here they come - or not". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.

      The article notes: "Dallas Cowboys cheerleader Kristin Holt was so excited after her successful audition for Fox's American Idol: The Search for a Superstar she accidentally slid feet first under the judges' table. It was nothing compared with the other wipeouts. ... Slipping and sliding Ms. Holt, for one, looks better than she sounds. The 20-year-old Plano resident is joined by three other Texans in the group of 30"

    8. Wilkes, Neil (2002-11-24). ""Idol's" Kristin back for second season". Digital Spy. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.

      The article notes: "Kristin Holt, semi-finalist in the first "American Idol", is returning to the show as a reporter for the second. The former cheerleader from Dallas, Texas, will chat to the wannabes during the audition process and "possibly" further on down the line."

    9. "Former Frogs Kristin Holt '03 and Brian Ching '96 find the spotlight in reality TV". TCU Magazine. Texas Christian University. Spring 2003. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.

      The article notes: "For two former Horned Frogs, reality TV is real life. Kristin Holt ’03, a semi-finalist on last summer’s “American Idol,” has joined the talent-search show in its second season — this time as a co-host."

    10. Day, John-Mark (2002-03-06). "More than just a Cowboys cheerleader". TCU Daily Skiff. Texas Christian University. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.

      The article notes: "And at the end of the day, when the numbers go up, Kristin Holt has a passing score. The girl who decided three days earlier to try out on a whim, had become the newest Dallas Cowboys Cheerleader; and the most hated girl on TCU’s campus. ... Holt would later make the traveling squad of the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, the elite 12-person team that represents the squad around the world. Two years later she would win a new competition, sweeping every category of the Miss Burleson pageant. Now she faces the Miss Texas pageant in July."

    11. Halperin, Shirley (2011-05-19). "You Made It To Hollywood, Now What?". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.

      The article notes: "1. Kristin Holt Adams Season 1 Currently Hosting G4tv’s X-Play and this fall’s GT Academy on Speed Channel. Formerly Girl who fell during audition; Lindsay Lohan’s backup singer."

    12. Thompson, Kevin D. (2003-01-21). "Former 'Idol' loser, new co-host: 'I got the best deal out of everyone'". The Palm Beach Post. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "You remember Kristin Holt, don't you? The former Dallas Cowboys cheerleader was a top 30 finalist on the first American Idol. She's a 21-year-old stunner who's perhaps best remembered for falling down in front of the judges' table after her audition. This time, Holt is on the other side of that table as a special correspondent on the second Idol. The personable Texas Christian University senior gave us the lowdown on the show."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kristin Adams (née Holt) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I reviewed cited sources and did a WP:BEFORE as part of my WP:DEPROD and found what I considered to be significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. ~Kvng (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO per the above source eval, which clearly shows no SIGCOV from IS RS. All sources presented are brief mentions in routine promotional news, and some involve subject directly, eg: "The personable Texas Christian University senior gave us the lowdown on the show." and others are affliated with the subject, [Day, John-Mark (2002-03-06). "More than just a Cowboys cheerleader". TCU Daily Skiff. Texas Christian University. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.]. And there is some promo listcruft, "13 Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders Who Went On to Bigger and Sometimes Better Things". None of the sources has significant direct and indpeth coverage of the subject from independent reliable sources.  // Timothy :: talk  03:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Simple GNG pass, per Cunard. Carrite (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. I'll note here that the articles can be restored if sources for these election results can be found. – bradv 20:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2001 Santa Rosa Local Elections[edit]

2001 Santa Rosa Local Elections (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)

Contested draftifications of two articles on local elections in the Philippines. Neither of these articles has any references, and so they fail verifiability, which is a core policy.


The Heymann criterion will be the addition of two references to reliable sources, such as Philippine newspapers. (The references must be added to the article, not merely listed in this AFD as a URL Dump.) Not draftifying these articles again unilaterally, because that would be move-warring, so relying in AFD as the consensus process. Draftify all as nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is not supposed to !vote, as they are already assumed to be voting for delete. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Timothytyy (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with that. Just putting a bold "delete" while nominator is unnecessary, and anything that attempts to make it look like there's consensus where there isn't would be bad. A clear "as nominator I prefer this ATD" should be fine (so long as it's made clear it's from the nom, which it was here) since like you said, the default assumption is that the nom is arguing for deletion. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 17:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not aware of a guideline that says that sources mentioned in an AFD discussion have to be added to the article during the time of the discussion. I mean, that is ideal but it frequently doesn't happen.Liz Read! Talk! 02:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, or draftify to Draft:2001 Laguna local elections and Draft:2004 Laguna local elections. I agree there's a verifiability problem here, and there appear to be no good online sources (searches for names like "Vanni Bustamante" turn up essentially nothing). I also think notability is an issue. This is a municipality with around 400K people that is neither the capital nor largest city in its province. I don't think having a page for every minor municipal election makes sense. 2007 Laguna local elections gives a good example of how this information can be covered on the page for the provincial elections, though there isn't a provincial page for 2001 or 2004, when I suspect there should be. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 18:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 08:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Found no news coverage of either elections, which is understandable considering even for American cities like Irving and Chula Vista, tracking down pre-2015 online news coverage of local elections can be quite difficult. However, I wasn't able to locate any election results to verify the date on the articles. What's more concerning is that for all the Wikipedia articles on Santa Rosa local elections, only the most recent one in 2022 have sources. If the creator actually have sources to back up the election data on the articles, they would have just add sources instead of moving the draft into main space without any improvement. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 07:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of formal science[edit]

Outline of formal science (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:SYNTH/WP:MADEUP, the assumption that logic, mathematics, and statistics are "formal sciences" is highly controversial and completely uncited here, and the other entries such as Systems science and Computer science are very often considered Applied science. This imagined hierarchy of the sciences appears to originate wholly from wikipedia editors. - car chasm (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Mathematics. - car chasm (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Lists. WJ94 (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Formal" and "applied" are not antonyms. There is precedent in philosophy, and in military circles, for treating concepts, methods, and algorithms that apply widely across multiple fields of science and engineering as part of formal science, e.g., Springer link, and its pdf. Operations research, Cybernetics, Control theory, and Systems theory all fall into this category. So the inclusion in this outline seems reasonable. Part of the challenge is that "formal science" means different things in say mathematical culture (formal language vs semantic models) and military culture (formal method vs semantic applications). That said, the nom is correct that the outline needs much netter sourcing to establish inclusion criteria and the hierarchy given. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate list of random things without recognizable real-world criteria Dronebogus (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Formal science" is a thing (surprise!), and logic, math, statistics, computer science, etc. come under its umbrella, but there's no need to list all the subfields of each one. Formal science#Branches is sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator‎. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Underwood[edit]

Matt Underwood (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)

Relies exclusively on primary source and webpage profile. Found many others sharing the name, including a professor and a fictional character, but no significant coverage of this individual. Fails WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per the SIGCOV identified by Eureka Lott. Please perform WP:BEFORE more thoroughly prior to AfD nominations Jack4576 (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per EurekaLott. I have since cleaned up the article, and if needed I found a few more references I can sprinkle in. Wizardman 19:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - reliable and in-depth sources exist per Eureka Lott's findings. Meets WP:GNG. - Skipple ☎ 20:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Should conduct BEFORE more carefully if it was actually done. Timothytyy (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom withdrawn. Sorry, my bad. I'll be more careful while searching for sources in AfD discussions and nominations. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 07:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kazem Amoli[edit]

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

Another contested draftification without improvement. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG, and nothing appears to meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 16:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This entry appears to be a interesting scholar, and may well be of interest to local Wikipedians in Iran, especially those in his fields
However, SIGCOV is lacking. There is a lack of in-depth coverage, and neither are there enough small instances of coverage to meet that threshold
In addition, his achievements don’t appear to be so extraordinary as to meet the threshold of NPROF
This entry does not meet GNG or an SNG. Regrettably, an impartial application of existing guidelines requires that this page be deleted, irrespective of other considerations Jack4576 (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is an overwhelming consensus to keep, however participants happened to make it to this discussion. There is also an expectation raised by such participation that efforts will be made to improve the encyclopedic substance of the article. BD2412 T 03:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IOS version history[edit]

AfDs for this article:
IOS version history (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 goes against current wikipedia policy on titled : What Wikipedia is not in specfic section it states that wikipedia is not a change log.

WP:NOT

WP:NOTCHANGELOG. 1keyhole (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While the article does include some information that would perhaps fall under WP:NOTCHANGELOG, the article also contains history of the changes of the software written in prose that goes far beyond a simple changelog. Describing and detailing the version history of a given piece of software is not in itself a WP:NOTCHANGELOG issue. - Aoidh (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Aoidh. Aintabli (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable operating system and Aoidh makes a good case for how this article is a "history of the changes of the software written in prose" so that WP:NOT does not apply. Lightburst (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Along with Firefox version history and Chrome version history, this article contains a large amount of useful historical info about a highly notable topic (iOS) that would be too bulky to fully include in the main article, making a spinoff page appropriate here. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 18:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep There is literally nothing wrong with this article. It is very useful, and it should not be removed. Ghostlystatic (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As several others have suggested, this page in it's entirety is extremely useful. This page has been active for YEARS and is not bothering anyone. If you don't want detailed information, then simply don't click on [show] and nothing detailed will be shown. It's as simple as that. If we delete this page then where does it end? Are we going to delete all the other pages with Version History? This is Wikipedia, people come here for information! LESS is NOT MORE in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShockingOutcome (talk • contribs) 19:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Being useful is not a valid arguement 1keyhole (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is, considering it has been around for almost two decades. Ghostlystatic (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's ridiculous. The usefulness of an article's information is absolutely one of the factors that has to be considered when nominating an existing page for deletion. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 08:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would sugguest you read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions as it clearly states that being useful is not arguement for keeping article.
    Please also remember that Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. 1keyhole (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is also important to read WP:USEFUL in its entirety because it doesn't quite say "that being useful is not arguement for keeping article". While "it's useful" by itself may not be a valid argument, "it's useful because of X" can be. If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Those arguing for its usefulness might consider elaboration on why it is useful. - Aoidh (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per above and arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Chrome version history (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firefox version history (2nd nomination), uncertain why this editor didn't do a multi-nom, as multiple separate discussions around largely the same issue seems very disruptive. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know you could do mutiple nomination thank you for telling me. 1keyhole (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this helped me so much just today in making a buying decision. Félix An (talk) 09:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per @Aoidh and @Lightburst; article provides a useful summary of the changes made to iOS in prose. Willsteve2000 (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's clearly an encyclopedic topic for software such as Firefox. Should be cutdown some but we can use Common sense as mentioned at WP:NOTCHANGELOG (same rationale as on the on-going AfDs: Firefox, Chrome, and iOS). Skynxnex (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Aoidh and for the same reason I expressed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firefox 2. Dawnbails (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for all the reasons I gave at WP:Articles for deletion/Firefox version history (2nd nomination) (I'll spare everyone a second recitation.) I would add that this article is substantially better organized than the Firefox one, and a lot of it is most definitely not a changelog. In particular, this article provides a contextual index letting visitors reach the main articles for each iOS version, like iOS 12. The version/device support tables are invaluable and excellent work that should remain on Wikipedia. – The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 15:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per DRV result, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 April#26 April 2023.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 16:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per all above. Any concerns involving WP:NOTCHANGELOG can be addressed via cleanup rather than deletion. Please see WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Frank Anchor 17:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per the reasons provided by Aoidh Jack4576 (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Aoidh reasoning, and the fact that i have put significant effort personally into making the overviews far less exhaustive. yes WP:NOTCHANGELOG exists but it specifically applies to exhaustive changelogs. If effort can be put in to condense the overviews (as seen with the entirety of the iOS 12 section where one line sentences are used instead of an exhaustive overview for each release), there is no valid reason why I can fathom voting delete on this article, especially not after the amount of time that has passed and the significant amount of time and effort that has been put into this article. I honestly believe the previous closure per WP:SNOW pre-relist was the right move here, same as with the previous nomination. Topic itself is notable, and receives significant coverage as well, people just need to start citing what they add. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 18:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And @1keyhole, WP:NOTCHANGELOG states that articles should not be exhaustive change logs of software updates. Theres nothing wrong with having version history articles so long as they aren't significantly verbose or list every little change or bug fix made to a version and only list the most notable changes with significant sourcing (as it is correct in that Wikipedia should not be a comprehensive changelog, for that people can view the official release notes or if a piece of software is immensely popular but is open source, the git commit log) and that can be done with the iOS version history article. I honestly suggest withdrawing this AfD nomination due to the sheer amount of edits that have been made since this AfD was listed, including the removal of device codes along with build numbers and codenames from the tables, not to mention significant effort was made on my part so far to reduce the exhaustiveness of the feature overviews to where the article went from over 318,000 bytes to slightly above 277,000 bytes. This article has genuinely been valuable to a lot of people as well, and while saying this results in WP:ITSPOPULAR or WP:ITSUSEFUL being applied, it is clear that it is an encyclopedic article, as its not just tables, its also prose (and the prose can be expanded to be more encyclopedic as well), and like I mentioned it is a significantly notable topic - there are a lot of publications that cover every iOS release, including the patch releases. This article also receives a significant amount of pageviews. Therefore I am re-inforcing my keep. Listing an article for deletion basically implies that an article can not be improved. You are severely misinterpreting the policy by saying that Wikipedia is not a changelog, however that is not what the policy states. It states that Wikipedia is not an exhaustive changelog, and that if articles do focus on it, to provide singificant sourcing and common sense to the amount of detail that should be included in articles. This AfD is a genuine misinterpretation of WP:NOTCHANGELOG. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 18:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Notable and content too large to fit on iOS article. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a reason for keeping (the original reason for deletion had nothing to do with notability, and the proposal is that the content be deleted entirely, not merged). * Pppery * it has begun... 03:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With over 200 references, many GNG quality, and a very clear and concise, well formatted article, this is a keep. And it's been snowing for weeks. Reversing the close at DRV and relisting it yet again, was a poor decision, given the snow; seems to be a case where IAR was called for, so as not to waste people's time with the needless relist. Nfitz (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without the tables, as a valid summary article of subarticles such iPhone OS 1, iPhone OS 2, etc. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Agreed with all editors involved. CastJared (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to "History of iOS" without tables. Version history articles are an invitation to unencyclopedic completionist cruft documenting every release. A broader history article would focus the content on only the major changes that received coverage in mainstream independent media. JoelleJay (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay: No they aren't? There are very few people who edit the article, and those who do are aware of Wikipedia policy. Users who aren't and add unnecessary content can always have their edits reverted. But killing off the tables would a) be catastrophic to this article's popularity in the first place and b) would severely impact the historical value of this article. Not to mention the vast majority of the article's sources are contained within the tables. There is nothing wrong with having the tables exist so long as the overviews within the tables aren't exhaustive (e.g. listing all features, improvements and bug fixes in an iOS release). And the whole "this is an invitation to unencyclopedic completionist cruft" is downright nonsense. The tables are severely valuable and notable, per Wikipedia guidelines. People have found immense use in this article's content, e.g. quickly learning about the changes in each iOS version (including the minor ones as those typically include a few new features that the major release doesn't include due to more time needed to bake them in the oven), without having to go through a billion pages or archived websites to find out. I for one have found this article to be severely useful, and it's why I've sunk so much time into editing it. You may have your opinion, but it's outright wrong and is additionally downright insulting to people with the whole "invitation" remark. That is straight up just rude and isn't how the majority of Wikipedia editors behave in my personal experience. You need to take into consideration the sheer amount of time this article has existed for and just how many people have found this information useful within that time period. Otherwise you're saying a significant piece of history should be deleted from Wikipedia purely based on "invitations" and "what ifs". - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 15:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They clearly are not aware of/care about wikipedia policy if deleting copyvio tables results in massive canvassing campaigns. That some people for whatever reason find version history tables useful and more convenient than other formats, or that they have existed for so long, or that people have worked hard on maintaining them, is not a reason to keep manifestly non-encyclopedic content. Take it to a version history wikia. JoelleJay (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    the copyright violations were removed months ago when the tables were originally reinstated, and i am trying to remove all of the long feature overviews from the tables to only highlight the most important changes. prose is not always the best format for an article, which is why tables are supported on wikipedia to begin with, and why list-class articles are allowed on wikipedia too per its policies. also, fandom is not a proper alternative to wikipedia. i don't know why you take such issue with tables, but aside from the long feature overviews for iOS 5 / iOS 4 for example, this article does not violate wikipedia's changelog policy on exhaustiveness in terms of changelogs. you have no valid ground for suggesting a prose-only article when tables are severely useful. and arguably this is encyclopedic because it is comprehensively sourced and notable as a topic. you are misinterpreting wikipedia policies into something they aren't. if the tables aren't exhaustive, and on top of the tables, the article also has a lot of prose, then how does this make the article non encyclopedic?! i fundamentally disagree with your reasoning, joelle. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 17:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as-is – the article fundamentally is just a changelog with some window dressing, so WP:NOTCHANGELOG is still engaged here. Any article along these lines that could possibly be compliant with NOTCHANGELOG would probably be too short as a standalone endeavour; in which case, the content would be much better off diffused between iOS and the other articles. Second option would be to draftily so that a History of iOS article can be drafted and eventually moved back into mainspace once that work is done. Sceptre (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sceptre: you are misinterpreting what WP:NOTCHANGELOG is. It only defines "exhaustiveness", not that a version history article straight up can't exist, or have tables detailing the major features in bullet point or sentence form. Having tables with three columns and only major feature highlights, does not violate that policy, therefore your comment is a bt redundant. Like I mentioned, the iOS 4 / iOS 5 tables are excessively verbose as are some others, but if need be those tables whose' specific overviews are too verbose can simply be emptied and replaced with more condese highlights. But merely having these tables does not violate the policy. See iOS version history#iOS 12 and what i did with that table, as an example. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 21:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - People need to read what WP:NOTCHANGELOG ACTUALLY says instead of interpreting it into their own definition before they vote. It only mentions exhaustiveness and that common sense should be used on the amount of detail to include. It does NOT outright ban these types of articles, nor does it ban the tables from existing. The article does have some severe comprehensive detail issues, especially on certain tables like iOS 4 and iOS 5, but those issues can be rectified through edits. From what I can sense from the policy, it implies to not excessively detail each and every change made to a software version, e.g. listing the entire release notes, like what was previously done when Apple's release notes were downright copied and pasted. So I am saying that people need to use common sense themselves and stop merely reading the policy shortlink alone and coming to some untrue conclusion as to what the policy actually means. Additionally, this is my last comment on this AfD, unless I'm replied to, but I will refrain from defending my stance further in any new votes, because my stance is already severely clear, and will instead suggest people to just actually read what the redirect's target says before voting. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 21:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sceptre and as possible copyvio. The article is an enormous list of changelog minutia, including over 300 instances of some variation of "bug fixes". There's no assertion that each individual update is notable and there's substantial worry that the reams and reams of text reproducing the patch notes in detail constitute a copyright violation per Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Each individual update of iOS is extensively covered by several publications and have been extensively covered for a long time - while yes some are focused on Apple, they are still editorially independent, such as MacRumors. See here, here, and here as examples for 16.4.1. And that is just one example. There is no argument of lack of notability here. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 16:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Axem Titanium: And with regards to paraphrasing, that can be fixed, but there is no copyright violations from what I've found in the text anymore as the copyright violations were fixed ages ago, so there is no argument for copyvio either and whenever I've modified the text I've made sure to steer clear of copyvio. If necessary the "bug fix" text can be removed, but individual iOS versions are significantly notable in that they receive extensive coverage, even for point releases and beta releases. I don't see how any of this is a proper argument to delete. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 17:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    At the time of my above comment, there were line items in the tables such as "Allows Siri to search personal photos and videos based on dates, locations, album names, etc." (from the ios9 table), which is a very close paraphrasing of the original text, "Siri improvements: Search your personal photos and videos based on dates, locations and album names" [16]. Now that (most of) the tables have been removed, there's less worry of that. I would continue to urge caution in any tables (including the still remaining tables for ios12 and ios16) that summarize sub-version numbers because they often become WP:COATRACKs for eager but misguided driveby editors to add copyvio text out of convenience. It's good that this AFD was relisted so necessary improvements can take place, instead of just another 'keep' result and leaving the article in desperate need of cleanup. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a heavy editor for the page, if anyone adds copyvio, it will be removed on sight, but as iOS 12's support has ended, there's no reason to believe that anything more will happen to that table. The reason the iOS 12 and iOS 16 tables are still there, is because I went through the effort to entirely rewrite the tables (for iOS 12 at least) to be more condense and to avoid any potential copyvio. I did originally remove the iOS 12 table as well, but that was before I remembered that I entirely rewrote that table. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 21:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The remaining tables are absolutely pointless and contain little to no encyclopedic information. Please seek consensus on the talk page to include, per WP:ONUS, rather than repeatedly reinstate them as you have. Listing minor security updates serves no point. For other examples, see Xbox system software, PlayStation 4 system software and other articles by the far better organized WP:WikiProject Video games, which used to contain this cruft, yet were removed years ago, contrary to the belief that changelog removals are a recent phenomenon. Here's how they used to look (and more). Those were all fixed in 2015, and the pages are better off for it. The WP:COMPUTING changelogs were only overlooked because the WikiProject is semi-dead.
    I've said it elsewhere, but changelogs are only useful when they're verbatim (how do we know which changes readers are looking for?) yet we obviously can't host verbatim changelogs here. There's no point in keeping any of this, when our changelogs can never be as accurate or as "useful" as any company's official changelogs. This whole debate is frankly becoming a waste of time that could be spend on improving 'proper' articles. Also please avoid WP:BLUDGEONing discussions like this. DFlhb (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus was already previously reached to keep the tables - you and one other editor were the ones who kept removing them despite the previous consensus to keep. Therefore, you have no valid ground to bring consensus into this. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 11:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As one more note (and then I'll leave the discussion until I get replied to), sentences detailing features, and features alone, does not constitute a change log. I have been around a long time (well, not that long, only since the start of the century plus that wording makes me feel old even though I'm not) and have followed the software world a long time, a change log is a complete and comprehensive list of all changes made to a specific version of software, it is not a list of major features only. therefore you are additionally misunderstanding what a change log even is. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 11:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Agreed with all editors involved. Many release notes may be forever lost and this article kept up with them as they came out. The updates and their notes are notable in their own right, and may be forever lost if this page was deleted or worse. Urbanracer34 (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without the tables, per Pppery. A minor annoyance has turned into a major headache that we can do without. Since popularity/usefulness was again brought up, I'll just note that the tables were fully removed for a while, resulting in no dip in the article's page views. Not that pageviews ever matters anyway, but there's no reason to think people are coming here to learn what happened in iPhone OS 2.0.1. DFlhb (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding the tables - All the tables aside from the iOS 16 one have been removed, due to them not being that high quality, or adequately sourced. However, the iOS 16 table has been kept as I just worked really hard to improve both the sourcing and the wording of that table. But, I do believe that if work is put in, the tables for the other iOS versions can be added with reliable sourcing that meets WP:GNG, WP:NCORP and any other policy or guideline that may relate to high quality sources for Wikipedia articles, along with WP:CHANGELOG. With this being said, it is best that I step aside from this discussion now, to let it play out and finish, however I'll probably still reply to anyone that replies to me. And the iOS 12 subsection was also recently improved to detail some of the features iOS 12 added, to serve as a sort of summary for that version. But summaries like these are IMHO a bit inadequate as Apple releases a lot of minor versions for their software during a major version's release cycle, to where those changes mentioned in iOS 12 are barely a fraction of what has been added, especially with the minor versions also adding features. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 12:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHANGELOG. If you actually read the policy, this is what the section says: "Common sense must be applied regarding the level of detail to include." It does not say that articles about version history must be deleted, or even that they should be deleted. That is not some kind of accidental oversight. The original discussion which led to this being put into WP:NOT was explicitly and unanimously in favor of writing a policy that would preserve Android version history; it seems somewhere between confusing and perverse that this same policy would be later interpreted as requiring its deletion! Note additionally the agreed-on proposals from that discussion: "This will still effectively ban changelogs for minor software packages, but allow significant changes in more notable software to be included." and "Remove the ban on tables." While I don't have a particularly strong opinion about whether the tables stay or go (it seems like you could express the same content just as well either way), the idea that "WP:NOTCHANGELOG says to delete version history articles" or "WP:NOTCHANGELOG says to delete tables" is simply not true. jp×g 00:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This page provides a unique overview of the release history of iOS. I also use it to decide when, and if to upgrade to a new version. For example, I always wait for the first, or even the second patch release before considering upgrade to the latest major release. This is to avoid most of the bugs and security vulnerabilities present in new versions. This page is very useful in keeping track of this information.HenrikS01 (talk) 09:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but heavily edit and change the title - There are many "it's useful", "it's important" votes above that should be discarded. Is it possible to re-write this article to be something that isn't a change-log? I would say probably yes, but in that case the title should probably change too because a "version history" is always going to be just a change-log in nature. My suggestion would be Development of iOS similarly to the featured article Development of Grand Theft Auto V. We would still need to show a pass of WP:CORP because this is an article entirely dedicated to a product/service of an organisation, but I think we have that based on the WSJ and NYT sources which should get us over WP:AUD and WP:ORGIND. FOARP (talk) 10:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is already a history section on the IOS article. 1keyhole (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which links to this page for further context, which it really does not deliver. If the development history of iOS is not sufficiently notable and has sufficient contextual information about it to sustain a page written in language comprehensible to the average person on the street in any part of the world (which is the audience we are supposed to be writing for) then this page should be deleted, but I think that is unlikely to be the case. We need a history of the development of iOS, not a changelog. I'm not ruling out that tables could be part of that but they need to be delivered in context, and the story told in better format that what is basically WP:PROSELINE beginning every paragraph with "Apple announced...". FOARP (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No offense but please cease commenting on every single AfD related to this policy. You are not letting fresh perspectives be heard and to be honest you are not helping. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 12:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure who you are responding to here Evelyn. I don't believe I have !voted on every AFD related to WP:NOTCHANGELOG or WP:CORP? FOARP (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep same as every re-attempt to delete these, rules are to help wikipedia not give token arguments to remove anything you dont like , prime example of when WP:IAR should be applied Popeter45 (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has been my primary place for checking details about new releases. I also like the revision where each major version has a list of releases: all in one place in collapsable sections. Someone seems to edit and move them elsewhere which I don't like. George Valkov (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While precedents about what to include or exclude are useful, we should not be tone deaf or mechanistic to eliminate articles of very high popularity or utility, of which this is one. Carrite (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename, and stubify with the expectation that the passionate !voters above are willing to write an encyclopedic treatment of the subject. History of iOS would be an appropriate article to provide a prose description cited to secondary sources about the history of iOS, which would then by summarized in a few paragraphs at iOS#History and expanded upon in each individual iOS version article. Currently, iOS version history is mostly an unsourced prosified list that gives a blow by blow account of updates and features, which is not what we do here. I'm also assuming that the closer will WP:DISCARD all of the !votes from WP:SPAs and all of those that are based solely on whether it is WP:USEFUL. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the unsourced prose is hardware support, which can be removed as it's far better presented in a table than in prose. It's already mostly covered by the first table, and if people want comprehensive detail, the now-removed hardware support tables can always be brought back. DFlhb (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep There is no valid reason to remove or mangle this article other than pedantry and being a nuisance to other users. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar. AfDs and the people who propose them are why I hate interacting with Wikipedia. Loknar (talk) 11:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is consensus that the sources presented are not sufficient to establish notability. Aoidh (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Mellor[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Brett Mellor (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)

G4 was declined with the rationale that the decision of the prior AfD was based on a deprecated notability criteria. However, it was deleted due to failure to meet WP:GNG, which to my knowledge has not been deprecated, although several of the delete !votes also mentioned NFOOTY, which has. The original nomination, which still holds true, read: "Article about a footballer who made one appearance in the English Fourth Division (in the last match of the 1979–80 season). The only online coverage is routine (i.e., database entries), and there is more coverage of his personal troubles than his footballing career (e.g., there is a single sentence in this coverage of the 1979–80 squad). Although it appears that a single appearance in the English Fourth Division creates a presumption of notability under WP:NFOOTBALL, there is a long-standing consensus that a minimal amount of play in a fully-pro league (though the claim that the 4th division was a fully-pro league in 1980 is a bit dubious) doesn't warrant the presumption if the article comprehensively fails the GNG; as this article does." Onel5969 TT me 16:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this entry might be of value to local interests. However for the reasons stated by One5969 above I agree that this entry does not meet GNG or an SNG in their present state. Regrettably, an impartial application of existing guidelines requires that this page be deleted, irrespective of other considerations Jack4576 (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through those sources that Das referenced, and some are significant - and there's more than enough to meet GNG in the Huddersfield Daily Examiner - a surprising amount. Nfitz (talk) 03:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's literally sources on the article... Huddersfieldtown5 (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Huddersfieldtown5: You'll have to forgive GiantSnowman, he has been acting like a bot at AfD for a long time and he always posts a generic comment like that. Govvy (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    where is the significant coverage? There is none. GiantSnowman 20:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't understand why this was recreated, it clearly didn't pass WP:BASIC last time, it still doesn't. Govvy (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It was recreated because it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place. Huddersfieldtown5 (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not? In my view it failed GNG last time, fails this time too. At best, a name on a list of 1 to 25 caps for the club would be best. Regards Govvy (talk) 09:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So are you going to be removing all footballers that played less than 25 games? Or just this one? Huddersfieldtown5 (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG and BIO, per nom's source eval.  // Timothy :: talk  07:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment that the English Fourth Division wasn't fully professional is complete nonsense.
You seem to have a problem with this one article despite there being literally 1000s of Football League players who have Wiki pages but played barely any games. Huddersfieldtown5 (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment that the English Fourth Division wasn't fully professional is complete nonsense.
You seem to have a problem with this one article despite there being literally 1000s of Football League players who have Wiki pages but played barely any games. Huddersfieldtown5 (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Professional status is irrelevant. Unless multiple reliable, independent sources are found discussing Mellor in significant detail, the article should not be kept. For example, if there is a newspaper or book that has multiple paragraphs of text about Mellor, we can look to keep this. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I tried something novel, and tried to improve the article, adding several references. There's more than enough coverage in the Huddersfield Examiner of his career to count as a GNG reference - the April 11, 1978 and June 12, 1978 articles in particular. Articles from other publications are quite brief, but going through the British Newspaper Archive, between the Hull Daily Mail and other brief mentions that I've not provided of his convictions for various drinking and violence charges, especially attacking a policeman in the 2010s, there's a case (barely) for notability. Nfitz (talk) 03:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Huddersfield Examiner counts as a single source towards establishing notability. The Hull Daily Mail is a mention. Other sources are database/lists. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to pass GNG. Rupples (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense. Huddersfieldtown5 (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:GNG states Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. Rupples (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vitaliy Farasyeyenko[edit]

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

Another contested draftification without improvement. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 16:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this entry may be of local interest, and the minimal amount of information it contains appears to be supported by reliable sources. However, it does not meet GNG or an SNG in their present state. Regrettably, an impartial application of existing guidelines requires that this page be deleted, irrespective of other considerations Jack4576 (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article does not pass WP:GNG. I have not been able to find any secondary reliable sources which have any significant coverage on the player. Fats40boy11 (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Verity Spott[edit]

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

Non-notable author. Fails GNG. No significant secondary sources. Seaweed (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Only found trivial mentions or primary sources of the subject. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: while I think a reliable assessment can be made that this author and this entry might be of value to locals, or the hundreds of their readers/students over the years; the lack of in depth coverage doesn’t meet SIGCOV, and neither can that threshold be met through the numerous minor other references we have here
It follows that this entry does not meet the present wording of GNG or an SNG. Regrettably, an impartial application of existing guidelines requires that this page be deleted, irrespective of other considerations Jack4576 (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SouthernNights Jack4576 (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your striking of your previous vote shows that you did not actually look for SIGCOV online carefully (if you actually searched). This is not the only time you ignored online sources or suggested "keep" by saying "no one explained in terms of online SIGCOV". Please make valid justifications next time. Thank you. Timothytyy (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I (mistakenly) assumed good faith that Seaweed had fulfilled WP:BEFORE, as Tutwakhamoe appeared to have in good faith obtained the same. Hence my delete vote.
Won't make that mistake again in future, don't worry. Thanks. Jack4576 (talk) 09:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my carelessness. Admittedly I wasn't familiar with the Creative professionals section of WP:BIO, and I was too focused on finding sources that can prove the claims about Spott's life (birth place, degrees in University, the claim that her works have been translated into multiple languages, etc.)
I've removed the originally inadequate sources and rewrote the first half of the article with some of the sources above. I'll care more care in my future searches for sources, especially for BLP. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Based on the sources brought by SouthernNights, this poet clearly meets Creative professionals and WP:GNG. I've added a new section to the article "Reception" and added two reviews of her work, and one book reference (that critiques her work on multiple pages) + citations for those publications. Doing a WP:BEFORE search is not required, but is strongly considered best practices (and is pretty much expected in AfD discussions). Netherzone (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies WP:CREATIVE as the creator of a significant and well-known body of work. pburka (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 01:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am also finding more at the WP Library, e.g. "Contemporary trans, queer poetics – including writing by Jay Bernard, Verity Spott and Laurel Uziell – has been engaged in animating and giving voice to archives, historical figures and events, creatively representing hirstories in a manner informed by present-day struggles against racism, xenophobia and transphobia and regimes of austerity and state violence." Raha, Nat; Baars, Grietje (2021). "'The Place of the Transfagbidyke is in the Revolution'". Third Text. 35. doi:10.1080/09528822.2020.1864950.; discussion of their work in Freedman, Lucy (2018). "A 'Beautiful half hour of being a mere woman': The Feminist Subject and Temporary Solidarity". Historical Materialism. 26 (2).; and Spott is noted: "In the UK, trans authors have also found creative expression in forms other than fiction, including the poetry of Jay Bernard, Nat Raha and Verity Spott, among others." by Juliet Jacques in "GENDER GENRES: On the emergence of transgender literature.", Frieze May2019, Issue 203, p22. I have not yet checked ProQuest. Beccaynr (talk) 01:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC) - quote from source fixed Beccaynr (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Per the discussion, it might be possible to create a properly sourced article on this topic, but the current version uses sensationalist news coverage that is not typically treated as reliable, and presence of copyright issues in the history makes it more appropriate to delete than attempt a rewrite. RL0919 (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UFO sightings in Thailand[edit]

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

A WP:COATrack for claims by one Muangman who seems to be rather taken in by the idea that he is some sort of diplomat communing with aliens. I see nothing worth saving. There are essentially no reliable sources on which to base this article. jps (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal and Thailand. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:COAT is not a valid reason for deletion. It's not a policy nor a guideline; it's just an essay. Even if it were, WP:COAT says "Articles about one thing shouldn't be loaded up with unrelated things to make a point." In other words, it says that if an article has cruft, then remove the cruft. It doesn't say to delete an article except "In extreme cases, when notability is borderline". I don't think any reasonable person can possibly think that in nation of 70 million, there aren't more than enough reliable sources to establish notability, albeit in a foreign language. Anyway, it only took me a few minutes to find these sources in English.
I'm sure there are way more in Thai. The solution here is improve the article, not delete it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of the sources you attest to wanting to use look to be violation of WP:SENSATION to me. If I removed the coat, there would be no article and rather than doing the undercover blanking thing, I thought we'd have a conversation. So it seems that your argument is that we should keep the article because you think reliable sources exist, but you haven't demonstrated that this is the case. jps (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CNN, International Business Times, Bangkok Post, Vice are all legitimate news sources. None of those qualify as WP:SENSATION. You claim that there are no reliable sources but that claim has been debunked. In any case, WP:COAT is still not a valid reason for deletion. So, you haven't even provided a legitimate reason to delete. Perhaps you would be willing to withdraw the nomination until you come up with a valid reason to delete it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mainstream sources that fall down credulous rabbit holes are exactly what the main concern of WP:SENSATION is about. If you don't understand that, it just makes WP:CIR a question to consider. jps (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, apparently I'm competent enough to know that the WP:COAT essay isn't a valid reason for deletion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia works based on a consensus model. You can WP:Wikilawyer all you want, but you'll find plenty of instances where articles were deleted due to WP:COAT. Just because you don't think WP:COAT is a valid reason for deletion doesn't mean that it automatically isn't. WP:CIR indeed. jps (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What if I deleted the content cited to the YouTube videos? Would that help alleviate your concerns? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per lack of reliable sources. The sourcing on this article is terrible. It was also created by a sock-puppet evading his block [18]. This terrible sourced article has no place on Wikipedia. We need reliably sourced articles. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - news sources should not be considered WP:RS per WP:SENSATION, if there's a single media outlet that doesn't fall foul under that policy with respect to UFOs and other WP:FRINGE theories I've yet to hear of it. - car chasm (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
News sources very much are considered WP:RS, I'm not sure where you could possibly be getting the idea aren't. I can vouchsafe that both Bangkok Post and CNN very much are RS in the scope of WP:RS. Boynamedsue (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The sourcing cited at the top of this page is all good, so they would stand as good sources for content in the article. However, they do not relate to the overall topic of UFO sightings in Thailand, just to specific incidents, and so it is far from clear if they support the existence of the page. I am sure that sources exist which do this, but it would be down to the proponents of retaining the article to prove this. Boynamedsue (talk) 13:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't see how any of the news sources here constitute tabloid reporting, as they all employ a documentary approach reporting the existence of these groups of believers rather than taking their claims at face value. Those arguing WP:SENSATIONAL should re-read what it actually says. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely this, it is total misapplication of the policy. The sources are absolutely fine to document what people CLAIM to have seen. --Boynamedsue (talk) 06:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Documentary approach" does not work when your "documentary" is of the Ripley's Believe It Or Not variety. When the subject turns to this sort of subject, it seems that author's lose their heads and editors look the other way when outlandish claims are reported. If it was just a matter of tracking the existence of groups of believers, it would be one thing. But this is instead taking these believers at their word or, at the very least, providing zero context or analysis for their beliefs which does the reader no service. Imagine articles on Flat Earth conventions which failed to mention that the claims are poorly considered. That's what we have in these sources. jps (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is a keep, though the current Thai references are all junk and the article (like thousands of others) needs serious improvement. I had concerns that the references were relating only to individual incidents, but there's a Wall Street Journal article on the topic in general. I have also found a scholarly source, from the Journal of Tourism Futures which has significant coverage of the contribution of UFO belief to Thai tourism.
I am puzzled at some of the arguments on this page, which seem to be arguing that, as belief in alien visitors is fringe, any source mentioning people who claim to see UFOs is covered by WP:SENSATION. It is worrying that users exist who are both experienced enough to find a deletion discussion and capable of such a massive misinterpretation of our rules. --Boynamedsue (talk) 07:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is frankly ridiculous. Tercer (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably better to add your reasoning here, given WP:NOTAVOTE. What "it" is, and the grounds on which you find it "ridiculous" would give your comment more weight. Boynamedsue (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There could in principle be a decent article with this title, but the text as it stands is in the blow it up and start over regime. The references are junk, and even a casual search finds copyvio (e.g., dozens of policemen and rangers rushed...). XOR'easter (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of reliable sourcing and reliance on sensational coverage. Carless editing that uses copyvios. Also, pretty much a WP:COATRACK. Wikipedia is not a repository for indiscriminate collections of information. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or find a suitable merge target for valuable content. WP:COATRACK combined with WP:SENSATION certainly constitute a valid reason for deletion. Regarding the arguments about the value of essays, then the oft-invoked WP:ATA doesn't mention these as arguments to avoid either. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The references are indeed junk. Google translate shows reference #1 is an internet forum posting. #2 is a Youtube video from someone who says they believe in aliens. #3 and #4 are also Youtube videos that are apparently unavailable. The Thai "news" links are indeed WP:SENSATIONAL clickbait and not serious journalism of the kind we'd require for such an article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 10:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Motorcycle Action Group[edit]

Motorcycle Action Group (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 about minor organisation promoting road users' rights (just motorcyclists). Article has been long-tagged for non-notability and nothing has been done to improve it. Most recent editing was about organisational infighting and involved COI. Nothing was/has been done to improve the article. Last person to edit the article has a still undeclared conflict of interest as the organisation's chair. His last contributions at ANI were revoked (I believe because they to make legal threats.). Sum total is an article, marred by COI bad behaviour, that fails to assert notability. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete A lot of gnews in the non independent source Visordown. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 07:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

0x80[edit]

0x80 (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)

Single source of one-off news article from 2006 about a someone/some people who may have create botnets. No further information. This doesn't seem notable all these years later. Article is virtually on orphan with one substantive internal link. Seaweed (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty great example of WP:NOTNEWS. All sources are breaking news reports, no apparent lasting significance. Fails WP:BASIC due to the reliance on breaking news stories. This was mentioned in the lead of Brian Krebs, but the idea that this interview is something Krebs is known for is absurd on its face; he broke stories on serious international criminals, not just one 21-year old that ran a Windows XP botnet — DFlhb (talk) 08:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Brian Krebs or Washington Post, who were involved in the metadata event. The guy himself seems like some random skid, and the interview itself wouldn't even have been notable if the reporter hadn't messed up and left "Roland, OK" in the metadata. jp×g 02:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Minimal participation with no consensus after multiple relists. RL0919 (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Biodiesel Board[edit]

National Biodiesel Board (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)

Has been tagged since 2015 with “ A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.” Chidgk1 (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Minimal participation with no consensus after multiple relists. RL0919 (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CityStudio Vancouver[edit]

CityStudio Vancouver (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)

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:44, 29 April 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 14:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mar Mari Emmanuel[edit]

Mar Mari Emmanuel (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)

On behalf of His Grace, Mar Mari Emmanuel (HGMM), we humbly request the deletion of this Wikipedia Page (Mar Mari Emmanuel) & related Talk Page page for multiple reasons, with all love and respect (above and beyond the reasons already listed in the Talk page), which also potentially & directly correlate to Wikipedia's community guidelines; i.e., HGMM is not deemed to be a notable figure when looking at credible sources, and the sources that have been noted as credible (mainstream news sites, etc.) from the simple reason that they only provide brief bursts of news coverage at a specific time in the past. Hence, per Wikipedia guidelines, this may not sufficiently demonstrate Notability WP:Notability. Additionally, we would also like to note that no evidence of permission WP:F11 was given for publication, even though HGMM is not deemed as an organisation himself, he is clearly associated both in the Wikipedia article and online through multiple sources (regardless of source notability) with the non-profit charitable church organisation that he both directly belongs to and oversees, Christ The Good Shepherd Church. Finally, also as a personal request which we believe is as important as the aforementioned and as clearly stated in the Talk section, HGMM is recognised as a clergyman and true servant of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, by his community and others who know him personally, hence, out of obedience and respect to his wishes for this page to be deleted WP:U1, we would also like to ask your help with kindly abiding by this request, please. GraceHanna53 (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can we believe that you are acting on behalf of Mar Mari Emmanuel. It is possible for anyone in the world to come and say that they are acting on behalf of someone. The criterias you mentioned for speedy deletion do not belong to mainspace. WP:F11 is for files and WP:U1 is for userpages. Thilsebatti (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Thilsebatti, this is an authentic request from the original source, directly from His Grace. As mentioned in one of my previous comments on his talk page, "...for any proof or legitimacy that this request has come directly from him, I ask you please contact the Secretary of our Bishop's church, Christ The Good Shepherd Church, with email that can be found on our Church website, www.cgsc.org.au.".
Unfortunately, when I tried to post the email itself in a prior comment, it was automatically omitted by Wikipedia. I can try and dictate it here without the algorithm potentially omitting it again, i.e., "admin, at, cgsc, dot, org, dot. au". I sincerely hope that helps. GraceHanna53 (talk) 06:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we accept Catholic bishops as notable (as far as I know), I'm not sure why this type of bishop would be any different. I can't find sources, but I'll take a longer look. Oaktree b (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In the past we’ve debated obscure bishops about whom almost nothing is known, and we’ve kept them. We know quite a lot about this person, and indeed the article demonstrates that they are not just a private person at all. Obedience and respect are not Wikipecia policies. Mccapra (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, Iraq, and Australia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Smashes WP:GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - could those voting !keep please help me see how the subject meets the GNG? I don't immediately see that a bishop who apparently overseas a single congregation of a splinter church is notable. The references on the page are fairly weak in terms of notability IMO and I'm not seeing much else. JMWt (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I mention to the nominator that WP:F11 applies to the deletion of files such as photographs. There is one photograph in this article which was apparently created by User:Ghareebota as their own work, and Ghareebota themself indicates that they have given permission for use of the photo on Wikipedia. (We are concerned with permission by the photographer, not permission by the subject of the picture.) WP:U1 applies only to the deletion of pages in the User: space of Wikipedia (for example, User:Metropolitan90 is my userpage) and has nothing to do with deleting regular articles such as the article about Mar Mari Emmanuel that we are talking about. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably Delete -- If the subject was a diocesan bishop of a major denomination, we would certainly keep this, but he appears to be a schismatic bishop with a single church of his own but some ministry to a few other schismatic church. I doubt that is enough to make him notable. Is this sufficiently referenced for a BLP article? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get the impression that many people are giving opinions based on the obviously unsatisfactory nomination rather than on the available sources. We have found only one reliable source which does no more than confirm that the subject was a suffragan bishop (i.e. an assistant bishop) in the Ancient Assyrian Church of the East in less than a single sentence. It is claimed that he is now a proper bishop, but in a schism of a schism. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I hate to have to abide by a request for deletion that violates Wikipedia's processes, but I fail to see how the article meets WP:GNG. None of the sources are reliable, with tweets, official websites and news stories not about the subject present, and the books (although I don't have access to them) seem like they would fall short of WP:SIGCOV. If any of the people who voted keep could explain how the article meets WP:GNG and provide reliable sources, I am more than happy to change my vote. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 10:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are some published items from conventional news organizations about Mar Mari Emmanuel ([19]) or referring to him ([20], [21]) and at least one book reference available on-line through Google Books ([22]), so he seems to meet the criteria for notability. His past role in the Assyrian church is also probably enough to make him notable. Bistropha (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From my understanding a one liner name mention in a book and a brief mainstream media coverage do not suffice the General notability guidelines of Wikipedia. Happy to be corrected, with all humility and respect. GraceHanna53 (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Daily Mail source is considered unreliable under WP:RSP, so I don't think that counts to notability. The SBS and ABC sources aren't about the subject although do mention him, and the book is a single line in a list of people. I still don't think this article is notable, despite the dubious circumstances in which the article was nominated for deletion. And to be clear @GraceHanna53:, I don't support your church or your dangerous and hateful views. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand, @JML1148, and we are not asking for your support here whilst also not being judgmental, at the same time. Regarding nomination, you will need to kindly excuse our novice & immature approach as this is our very first time attempting to perform this type of action. GraceHanna53 (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 14:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As others have noted, I hate to agree to delete when the request is an obvious violation of Wikipedia policy, however I cannot find significant coverage of this person in reliable sources. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is clearly not enough SIGCOV for the article to pass GNG; he mainly just seems to be notable for a video saying some stupid stuff, which is not enough for an article. I don't like having to agree to delete when the nomination is so against policy, but it is what it is. AryKun (talk) 12:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). Closer should take the appropriate action regarding nom's group account.  // Timothy :: talk  10:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough in reliable sources to meet GNG/BIO. Rupples (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 07:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GITEX Impact[edit]

GITEX Impact (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)

Requesting to move to draft as the user move it to mainspace without submitting draft for review 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥(ContainThisEmber?) 14:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First of all, this is an advertisement, not an encyclopedia article. Second, see WP:FUTURE. Third, see the second for a first time future event – none of the information can ultimately be separated from sources connected to the event. If this is to be published at all, it should be after the event occurs, but not before. Ira Leviton (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. About 3/4 of the sources all share a similar wording style, something like "largest global event on climate investment" and "bringing in a spectrum of stakeholders", to a point where it can't possibly be a coincidence. And the rest are promotional, trivial mentions or entirely unrelated. Searching the term only returned more trivial mentions. Even if the event would be notable in the future, the sourcing on the current article is so terrible that editors might as well just start over from scratch. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is not relevant for Wikipedia. --BoraVoro (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 10:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wyprawa Robinson[edit]

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

Cannot find any evidence of notability, which it has been tagged for since 2017. Sending it here to see if anyone else can find something that would justify keeping this article, and if not, then it should be deleted. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nadeem F. Paracha. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Student Politics in Pakistan: A Celebration, Lament & History[edit]

Student Politics in Pakistan: A Celebration, Lament & History (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)

Topic is an individual journal article. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. According to GScholar this paper has been cited a grand total of 12 times, which is miles from what could be notable. --Randykitty (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The low number of citations suggests that this paper has not had a significant impact in its field. Although we don't have a specific notability guideline for academic journal articles, the closest we have (WP:NJOURNAL, WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NBOOK) all look for evidence of significant impact in the relevant field; if we applied a similar standard here, the article would fail. The article is also unsourced and I can't find anything myself, so this also fails WP:GNG. Wouldn't oppose a redirect to the author. WJ94 (talk) 09:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There are a few arguments here that are weak. When NOTNEWS and FRINGE are concerns, pointing only to the number of news sources covering a topic doesn't carry much weight. And there appears to be at least one argument suggesting we should have an article because this could be a "real" sighting, which may affect that editor's longevity in this community but carries no weight whatsoever here. Conversely, how often UFO sightings are reported is quite irrelevant; it's SIGCOV that matters.

Setting those arguments aside, there is clear consensus here that the topic has substantive coverage from reliable sources. However, those arguing for deletion generally contend that this coverage is insufficiently analytical to let us write an article compliant with WP:FRINGE; that is, even the best possible version would give undue credence to fringe viewpoints. This is a good argument in principle, but in this case it is outweighed by editors arguing that the improved version of the article does comply with WP:FRINGE, and specifically that writing that a pilot said he saw something does not make a fringe claim.

Please note that I'm not dealing with any of the allegations of canvassing here. Inappropriate behavior may have occurred; but this isn't the forum to deal with it, and closing this takes long enough without my needing to investigate other behavior. If concerns remain about canvassing or disruption, please take them up at AN. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Alderney UFO sighting[edit]

2007 Alderney UFO sighting (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 was tagging this article for cleanup, but going through the sources made me realize that there is very little here on which to write an article. Credulous youtube videos, a paper published in the poorly considered Journal of Scientific Exploration and a lot of WP:PRIMARY sources seem to be the only thing this article is hanging its hat on. WP:TNT is necessary here, I think. jps (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, which of those books do you think is reliable for accurately documenting the claims? Remember, too, that WP:SENSATION means that local press is not considered a reliable source for UFO claims. Additionally, if no one who isn't a believer in UFO absurdity has noticed, we probably cannot have an article on the subject. jps (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The books aside, we've got the Evening Standard, which is national news. Looking further, it's got SIGCOV by the BBC in this article, in the Register here, and here in the New Yorker. There's also this Times article hit on Google, but it's paywalled and might be a false positive) Again, I am not saying that it's a real UFO, but it's pretty undeniable that the claims of a sighting have been discussed in HQRS, and we report incidents of mass hysteria, hoaxes, cryptid "sightings" without giving credence to them. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SENSATION. You seem to have been taken in by a craze that is producing unreliable content in what are otherwise normally reliable sources. The problem is that even claims of UFOs need to be verified by people who are separate from credulous community because false positives abound to such an extent that there is a WP:NFRINGE question whether every single claim is worthy of an article. In general, we go by WP:FRIND to establish when a claim about UFOs is worthy of discussion in this reference work. That is what we are lacking here: any third-party evaluation. It's all WP:PRIMARY and breathless speculation. jps (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've managed to get hold of the Times article from 2021; it certainly has SIGCOV, including a short interview with the pilot who allegedly saw the UFO. I'm going to have a go at knocking together a short article from the HQRS we do have; I should have the bones of something by the end of today. Hopefully we'll then be in a position to judge whether an article meeting WP:GNG is a possibility. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did they interview anyone who wasn't a UFO believer? jps (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything in WP:GNG that the significant coverage in high-quality, independent, reliable sources has to be balanced; WP:GNG judges the quality of the source, not the article. I don't think WP:GNG has room to quibble the quality of the article, only whether its source is considered independent, published, reliable and secondary. Again, this is an article on a claimed sighting; it doesn't (any longer) engage with what, if anything, may actually have been seen. The BBC, the Telegraph, the New Yorker, the Times and the Evening Standard are all fairly unimpeachable, and all have WP's seal of approval of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. That's five good sources reporting on the claimed sighting, which means that it passes WP:GNG by just any standards. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no academic or skeptical reception for this alleged UFO sighting, this means there is a serious lack of reliable sources and the neutrality issue of not having a balanced article but one that is overly supportive of fringe content. Journal of Scientific Exploration and YouTube videos are not reliable. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comment above: there's certainly coverage in reliable, non-fringe press sources. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if there isn't WP:SIGCOV on whether or not the sighting was real then there isn't WP:SIGCOV at all. All UFO claims are obviously just swamp gas but if it didn't even merit enough attention to get a full debunking it's just mindless media chatter, whatever passes for journalism these days should categorically not be considered a WP:RS for this sort of thing. - car chasm (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've completely rewritten the article based on what I can find in undisputably HQRS. It's not going to be making FAC any time soon, but I think it fairly conclusively demonstrates WP:GNG, and I'm happy for the text to be picked apart to remove anything that isn't strictly factual or verifiable (note that the entire sighting is couched in "Bowyer reported..."). I think the adoption of this 'sighting', particularly given the shakiness of its evidence base (basically a chat between a pilot and an ATC guy), by ufologists is interesting, but that would require citing some less-reliable sources as WP:PRIMARY, which I don't think is a good idea when the overall notability of the subject is in question. There's also the (self-published?) 2007 book on the topic, which gets referenced in some dodgy places but actually seems remarkably level-headed: the authors seem to be fairly respectable folklorists, it avoids anything about aliens and all but calls the pilot a liar. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Carchasm, ජපස, JoJo Anthrax, and Psychologist Guy:: Since your comments, the article has been blown up and started over. Thinking of WP:HEY, could you see if you think it now shows that the claims of the sighting have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Evening Standard and Daily Telegraph might be reliable for talking about someone's diet or if they own a pet dog but they are not reliable for fringe content. The article is unbalanced, there are no academic, scholarly or skeptical sources on the article. The Register is not a good source [23]. The Evening Standard is a credulous tabloid source [24]. For me I stick with what I voted, to delete. There are good and bad articles on Wikipedia, this in my opinion is still bad per lack of reliable sourcing. I am not a fan of the tabloid fluff. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this; I appreciate you taking a second look. I'd strongly dispute that label on the Telegraph; I'm not fan of it in general, but it's regarded as one of the UK's newspapers of record, and it's considered reliable on the perennial sources page. Leaving those three aside, though, we still have The Times, the BBC and the New Yorker. That's three good, reliable sources, which should be a clear GNG pass even if we totally reject the others (which, again, I think would be incorrect). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Telegraph is one of the three UK newspapers of record, alongside the Times and Guardian, all three are of equal quality. The Telegraph has repeatedly stated to be reliable at RS noticeboard. The Evening Standard is also a reliable source, if not as prestigious as the three aforementioned. There is no requirement whatsoever for RS to be "sceptical" in the sense that you mean it, being an ideological commitment to disprove claims of the supernatural, or in this case, claims that third parties might attribute to the supernatural. The articles record experiences that people claim to have undergone, in this case, multiple people, without taking a position on their explanation, or even their veracity. This looks very much like a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.--Boynamedsue (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV the article is not good because it is not balanced and is giving undue weight. Just because a website may be deemed reliable does not mean it is reliable per fringe content. Newspapers make their money by making sensational stories and that is all this article cites. Journalists are the last sort of people you would want to rely on for writing an article about UFOs and in this case we only cite journalists. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SENSATION seems to be assiduously avoided by you. Why is that? Where in all these "impeccable sources" do you find the authors doing the due diligence of finding independent experts who are not in the sway of credulous belief in ufology? Yes, in this area, sources that are normally reliable seem to be wont to fall into sensationalism which includes the BBC, The New Yorker, and so forth. Rather than this being an exemplar of WP:HEY, I am inclined to find this to be more of an exemplar of how there seem to be no good sources for this subject. jps (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's a fair reading of WP:SENSATION, which (to me) is warning against using low-quality journalistic sources, or using journalistic sources to support sensational statements. I don't see it as prohibiting the use of widely-acknowledged reliable journalistic sources to report statements made by people, where the fact of their having made the statement is not controversial or extraordinary (again, that's very different from saying that the statement they make isn't controversial). I appreciate that we may not agree on this one, though. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one is disputing the fact that the pilots made a claim. What is unaccounted is the context for this claim. People see shit all the time. For whatever reason, pilots who see shit end up getting noticed by sensationalized news services (probably because there is money to be made by such reporting). WP:NFRINGE deals with this sort of problem and explicitly calls out those outlets which are otherwise normally perfectly reliable. The problem is and always has been when it comes to this subject that it is in the same league as stories about Marian apparitions, haunted houses, or sightings of Bigfoot. It's all the same soft-ball journalistic game given to third-string reporters who either begrudgingly do the assignment or are themselves so compromised by credulity as to not be able to simple things like, say, fact check straightforward physical claims. Anyway, we have these WP:PAGs like WP:FRIND for a reason. There absolutely do exist sightings reports which have been noticed enough by third parties that you can write a WP:NPOV article on the subject. But this article has only the pilot's say-so breathlessly repeated in what I would describe as "clickbait articles". Wikipedia is not meant to be indiscriminate, and that is what I see this "improved" article still suffering from. jps (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we're going to agree here, though I appreciate your time and effort in continuing this discussion in good faith. I'm sympathetic to a great deal of what you say, but I don't think it constitutes a reasonable interpretation of the acceptable reasons to delete an article. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a single source cited that I would consider reliable for this sort of thing. News sources are categorically bad for aliens per WP:SENSATION. - car chasm (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is relevant to User:Psychologist Guy's point as well: each AfD is different, but a useful comparison might be Flight 105 UFO sighting, which is a GA on a similar topic. There's plenty of use of newspaper sources there, and indeed I can't see a meaningful difference between the sourcing for this article and that one (the GA has books, but of the sort cleared out in previous edits as unreliable). On a related topic, we have Cottingley Fairies, an FA, which heavily uses news source as well.
It's a valid belief to hold that Wikipedia shouldn't have articles on claims that are almost certainly untrue, but that ship has rather sailed. Similarly, the idea that news sources should be automatically discounted as HQRS in an article on a UFO sighting simply doesn't fit with WP:HQRS, or indeed the established practice across the encyclopaedia.
WP:CONLEVEL is important here: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. Saying that well-regarded news outlets cannot be used as sources for reports of a UFO sighting runs against the large-scale community consensus. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support an AFD for that article as well. I don't think the ship has sailed or ever will sail on platforming nonsense. - car chasm (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At least the Flight 105 article has the benefit of a reliable, independent third-party evaluation of the pilot's claim. This article doesn't even have that. The UK authorities just dismissed the report out of hand. jps (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SENSATION is hardly "local consensus". jps (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the interpretation of it you and other users seem to be attempting to implement here certainly is. The idea seems to be that reports on the topic of UFOs in reliable sources must, in all circumstances fall under WP:SENSATION, which is completely unfounded. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that UFO reports are not WP:SENSATIONal, I think you are out on a limb far away from the reality of this subject. jps (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I strongly suggest that no loophole in WP:GNG exists for reports of moving objects in the sky which the witness does not recognise. We have articles on many things which empirically are not real, and many more which may not be real. If UFO reports were somehow an exception to this, it would have been mentioned in the guidelines. --Boynamedsue (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You think GNG is magic sauce of some sort that automatically confers necessary to be an article status on every topic? You are mistaken. GNG is a standard by which one can judge the possibility of whether an article should exist. It is not a suicide pact. I can point to many subjects for which I can find sources that satisfy GNG which are not articles because, perhaps, they are part of another article or there are extenuating circumstances which prevent the article from being written with adherence to WP:5P. There are plenty of subjects that are covered by such awful souring that they just do not belong in Wikipedia. jps (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @UndercoverClassicist: for the ping. I remain unconvinced that this article should be retained. What follows are two on-wikipedia examples that might help illustrate that opinion. In the first, the Varginha UFO incident, we have an "incident" involving a fairly large number of witnesses/observers to nothing unusual, and although nothing actually happened there is a large number of reliable, WP:FRIND sources that, for better or worse, establish its notability. The Alderney event has a small number of witnesses (and based on my readings, perhaps only one), and despite happening 16 years ago it has not generated anything close to the Varginha level of reliable sourcing, which I consider to be a bare minimum for inclusion in this encyclopedia. I also note that the Alderney event has attracted almost no reliably-sourced attention whatsoever since 2007. The second example involves events that occurred during the 1980s, in which dozens, if not hundreds, of people observed UFOs flying in the vicinity of the Hudson River in New York (see the Black triangle (UFO) page). Those events, which were hoaxes perpetrated by pilots of ultra-light aircraft, do not have (or merit) a stand-alone page in part because, like the Alderney event, the attention it has received is dominated by WP:SENSATIONAL, unreliable sources written by unquestionably pro-fringe ufologists. The Alderney event seems to me similarly dominated by unreliable articles/books from credulous, pro-fringe writers, including the currently-cited David Clarke and Matthew Campbell. Such attention does not signify notability. Perhaps the Alderney incident does merit brief attention in another article, such as here. Perhaps. But it remains insufficiently notable to have its own article. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you: I appreciate your taking the time to set this out. What are your objections to David Clarke (not currently cited in the article, except in Further Reading) and Matthew Campbell? Clarke is an academic at Sheffield Hallam University who works on the folklore of UFO sightings (not a Ufologist), and Campbell is a senior foreign correspondent for the Times. Those are both positions that carry with them a strong assumption of being WP:HQRS. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion Clarke's long list of credulous, sensationalist writings and activities related to UFOs speaks for itself, and I note that having an academic position does not automatically qualify one's published works as reliable. Campbell's writings on UFOs, including his Twitter posts, in my opinion define everything he writes about the topic as unreliable. Assumptions of reliability are appropriate, but those assumptions go only as far as the actual material. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Observation by two pilots who went public, two passengers who went public, besides a sighting from land, and radar observations that seem to corroborate the sighting. So, visually observed from three directions, and from a fourth if you include radar traces, which also provided exact coordinates of two objects (now removed from article). Subject of a study by David Clarke. Something happened. As with the Tunguska event we don't know what caused it, but it happened. On a par or better substantiated than the 2006 O'Hare sighting. Does anyone want to delete that also? JMK (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We absolutely know what happened at Tunguska. Bizarre that you would claim otherwise (and concerning since competence is required). This seems to be a sort of WP:ADVOCACY for you rather than a dispassionate approach to a subject which is rightly maligned as full of credulity and lacking rigor as the analysis presented still in the article seems to do. jps (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and a fairly obvious one at that. The article as it exists now is impeccably sourced. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canvassing jfs has posted this AfD on the Fringe Theories noticeboard with the intent of attracting support for deletion. While it may be considered relevant given their objections relate in part to WP:FRINGE, the way the notice is framed not neutral. That board is also something of a meeting point for users who identify as "sceptics", who they might reasonably believe would support their arguments. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a severe violation of WP:AGF and a complete misapprehension of the rules for dealing with WP:FRINGE content. jps (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
with the intent of attracting support for deletion How, praytell, did you divine the intent of my notice to WP:FTN? Do you think you have psychic powers? jps (talk) 07:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because you use the term WP:TNT in both your nomination and your canvas at the WP:FRINGE noticeboard. This indicates your desired outcome. My psychic powers were quite unnecessary here. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because I see cause for an article to be deleted doesn't mean my intent is to attract support for said deletion. Again, this is a massive abrogation of WP:AGF. jps (talk) 11:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you seem intent on arguing the toss here, I would refer you to WP:INAPPNOTE. You fall foul of 3 out of 4 categories here.
1. Message. Your initial message on the noticeboard was not to ask opinion but to advise the board of what you believed to be a bad article. You then stated you had referred it to AfD and that "I think we should WP:TNT this."At no point were you asking for the opinions of others, you were canvassing their support. This is clearly what is advised against as a "biased message".
2. Audience. The audience you chose to advise is partisan, given the self-selecting nature of people concerned with removing Fringe Theories from wikipedia. It is exceptionally unusual to find users ready to state that mainstream newspapers are not reliable sources, this is an extreme minority position. Yet 3 have visited this page, yourself and two posters who are regular visitors to the Fringe theories noticeboard, attracted by your canvas. There are several other noticeboards which might be interested in this AfD, you did not notify them.
3. Transparency. No notification is visible on this page advising that you have posted this AfD there with your opinion on the article.
So, AGF dictates that I assume this lack of care does not relate to any deliberate malice on your part, rather to a misunderstanding of WP:CANVASS. However, it does not require that I refrain from pointing out that your behaviour has contradicted this policy. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think I am behaving badly, take it up with ANI. I reject your made-up rules about how people are supposed to frame messages. I have an agenda, I trust that others who read my posts can be competent enough to make their own decisions without parroting my own. My intent is to inform about what I think is best for the website and the public-facing content, nothing more.jps (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was merely making the closer aware of your canvassing, so it can be taken into consideration. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no evidence of canvassing here. None. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is very strong evidence, given the non-neutral message, the partisan forum, and the fact that of 8 commenters on this RfC, 4 have voted keep, and 4 have voted delete. All of the latter are regular posters at Fringe Theories Noticeboard.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The audience you chose to advise is partisan, given the self-selecting nature of people concerned with removing Fringe Theories from wikipedia. Huh? Are you saying all the editors at WP:FTN are partisan? Or just some of them? Which ones? I've been volunteering at WP:FTN for several years and I'd love to know how you are able to determine the biases of all the editors that post there. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I fully recognise that many users at that forum either don't identify as "sceptics", or if they do, don't let it interfere with their editing. However, the choice to link at that forum and nowhere else had a vote-stacking effect here. --Boynamedsue (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean jfs literally said "You know what [...] I think we should WP:TNT this". There's no way that's a neutral notice - it's clearly urging people to go and get this article deleted. A neutral notice would (at the very least) not advocate coming here to vote one way. I wouldn't suggest WP:ANI unless it becomes (is?) a pattern of behaviour but Boynamedsue is right to flag it up to the closer. FOARP (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Boynamedsue: Thanks for striking the aspersions. Discussions on here seem to often ramp up in nastiness so I appreciate you de-escalating to keep things chill especially considering the "gravel in your guts and the spit in your eye". Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 07:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Roxy the dog 15:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC) (unsigned comment, that breaks page fornatting, removed. I came here from FTN, a noticeboard dedicated to improving the project by discussion about good, and piss poor articles, of which this is one. You need to refresh your understanding about WP:Canvass. Please avail yourself, whoever you are, of my helpful link. - Roxy the dog 15:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Ok, perhaps you could have a look at WP:CIVIL while you were at it? Just to clarify, I believe that your post here kind of makes my point about WP:CANVAS, you are here because of a non-neutrally worded post in a forum with a strong bias against articles relating to topics similar to this. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Topics about unsourced nonsense and based on unreliable sources, defended by frankly WP:CIR people, indeed. This is a prime example. - Roxy the dog 16:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Are you going to complain about this? and this? oh dear me- Roxy the dog 16:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's quite unpleasant, isn't it? I think that the competence issue seems to be coming from the canvassed posters here. WP:GNG and the perennial sources list are pretty clear that The Times, Telegraph and BBC are reliable sources. We don't get to disqualify them when they say things we don't like, more's the pity. --Boynamedsue (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to think that the list of perennial sources is somehow more important than content guidelines which identify when otherwise reliable sources can go astray. That is the fundamental difference in editorial philosophies here. The fact of the matter is that we do get to disqualify sources when it comes to notability tests when there are problematic contexts for a particular subject. Just because a source is generally reliable doesn't make it a magic talisman for article writing in defiance of WP:NPOV (which is exactly what has happened here). jps (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The document mentioned in the New Yorker is available from NICAP. The appendices—all primary sources for this article—don't quite match the news coverage. The MoD respond saying, The position reported is outside of the UK radar coverage and in fact inside French airspace for air defence. We had no reports from the French that the object was seen or detected on radar. We believe the ATC radar at Jersey is secondary only and therefore unable to achieve a primary radar contact (if the object was capable of producing one). The contact was reported as stationary again making radar detection unlikely and no further reports indicated that the object had a heading towards the UK. Therefore, we conclude that there was no threat to the UK from this observation and will not be taking the investigation furhter. The other pilot account says visibility was fairly poor due to haze. Ray Bowyer gives a really thorough interview regarding weather and visibility. Bowyer says the BBC has the flightpath wrong. The account from the passenger sounds atsmospheric: Ray then dropped the nose of the plane down. I could then see something through the windscreen. It looked like the sun reflecting off glass. What I was looking at was a very bright light over the sea below us. It could have been sunlight reflecting off something. There were two lights. The second was roughly where I was expecting the airport to be (over Alderney). The lights persisted for a few minutes. I realize that a Wikipedia article can't be constructed from our analysis of primary sources compiled by ufologists. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 04:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @UndercoverClassicist: Thanks for the work improving the article. I want to give a specific issue with the sources. The New Yorker article seemed the most reliable, so I checked it out. It cites an in-depth private research paper linked above. The passage cited to the paper, seems quite a bit off. The source seems to conflate unexplained with unexplainable and misrepresent the ufo researchers. Take a look at each:
    • The timesNew Yorker says: The “Report on Aerial Phenomena Observed Near the Channel Islands, UK, April 23 2007” was drafted with the coöperation of dozens of domain experts—meteorologists, oceanographers, harbormasters—and various French institutes and British ministries, and it culminated with sixteen prevailing hypotheses, ranked by plausibility. Largely ruled out were such atmospheric aberrations as sun dogs and lenticular clouds, and an exceedingly rare and poorly understood seismological phenomenon known as “earthquake lights,” in which tectonic distress expresses itself in bluish auroras or orbs. The report concluded, “In summary, we are unable to explain the UAP sightings satisfactorily.”
    • The ufo research paper says: It proved possible to eliminate a number of theories with a fairly high level of confidence, but we were unable to conclusively identify the UAPs observed. We found that two theories had some potential to explain at least a majority of the features observed and might be the basis of a future explanation. But we are sensible that a potential to explain is not an explanation. These two theories involved atmospheric-optical phenomena (specular sun reflections on a haze layer capping a local temperature inversion) or geophysical phenomena (related to ‘earthquake lights’ or EQL). But each theory has some interesting problems. As we state in our Conclusions (Section 7): ‘It may prove possible for other investigators to adapt these theories and so improve the fit with observation, or further work might thoroughly rule out one or both of them.’
    The New Yorker is generally reliable but that's an example of the kind of error I see in that specific article. I can try to take a look at The Times later. The other articles all seem to have come within the news cycle. Also, JoJo Anthrax, I hope you don't mind if I ping you to get your input on the above. Rjjiii (talk) 00:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, User:Rjjiii. There's two things here: I'm afraid I don't see the contradiction you describe: the New Yorker (not the Times, I don't think) uses Largely ruled out were, which is a decent summary of It proved possible to eliminate a number of theories with a fairly high level of confidence. As I read both sources, they're saying that the researchers were unable to explain the sighting, not that the sighting could never be explained. The "unable to explain" quotation comes later in the paper.
There's also a bit of a have-our-cake-and-eat-it problem here: if the research paper is reliable, it's evidence that the article passes GNG; if it's not reliable, we can't use it selectively to fact-check sources we don't like. I'd suggest that it's best for the moment to treat it WP:PRIMARY, and so to use it only to point out direct misquotations or mischaracterisations of it from the secondary sources. Again, I don't see that we've got that there: could you give me a little detail as to what you meant?
There's a broader point on the meaning of "reliable source" here that's relevant to User:JoJo Anthrax's point: while an individual author's authority does have a bearing on WP:HQRS, the more significant point is that in general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. This is why we don't generally consider blogs, tweets or self-published works particularly reliable, even if their writers are generally considered knowledgeable and honest; conversely, when we trust a source like The Daily Telegraph, that's based on the fact that a reputable newspaper has editors and an approval process to catch and correct errors, has a large enough body of readers willing to make complaints against it, is subject to regulation that requires it to report with integrity and issue corrections when those complaints are upheld. Personally assessing each journalist through their own work (as opposed to secondary sources on it) is missing the point, and also essentially relying on a Wikipedia editor's subjective judgement, which has all the problems of WP:OR. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should preface this by saying that a Wikipedia editor's view of a journalist, based on a search into a their Twitter account, does not overturn whether or not the newspaper for which they write is considered reliable. However, since it has been suggested that Campbell's writings on UFOs, including his Twitter posts, in my opinion define everything he writes about the topic as unreliable, I searched his Twitter for the terms "UFO", "space", "alien", "vessel" and "Alderney". The only hit was this tweet, which is anything but credulous: note the scare quotes around "UFO". UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have striked (struck?) my comments about Campbell above, as I stupidly landed on the account of another, unquestionably pro-fringe writer named Matthew Campbell. Thanks very much to UndercoverClassicist for pointing out my mistake. For what it is worth - which after that is probably not much - I still believe this non-event has not received what I consider significant or sustained coverage since 2007/8, making it non-notable, and my opinion that Clarke is an unreliable source for this topic stands. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that it's best for the moment to treat it WP:PRIMARY, and so to use it only to point out direct misquotations or mischaracterisations of it from the secondary sources. Again, I don't see that we've got that there: could you give me a little detail as to what you meant? To be clear, I agree about the private research paper. I've brought it up because the secondary sources are using it. And additionally to be clear, I don't intend to vote on this one. I'm honestly not familiar enough with Wikipedia policy and otherwise it would pass the notability guidelines.
To give some more detail: I read the (primary source) paper as saying they ruled out all but two of the interpretations. I read the (secondary source) news article as including those two possibilities among those largely ruled out interpretations. Just past where the New Yorker cuts their quote, the primary source reads We are unable to explain the UAP sightings satisfactorily without either a) discounting at least some significant features of the reports, [...] and I think that snipping prior to "without" is rather huge. Eyewitness accounts are not 100% reliable. My reading of the statement is that 2 of the interpretations were considered plausible. Rjjiii (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I basically agree with all of that, with the caveat that the two options presented at the end of the report (essentially, "some details are inaccurate" and "all of physics is wrong") weren't among the initial 16 hypotheses, so it's still true that 0/16 were found plausible). We have to be careful, however, in how far we can use that paper within the article. If we're not going to use the paper itself as a reliable secondary source (as has been suggested earlier in this discussion), we need to follow WP:DUEWEIGHT, and follow the decisions made in HQRS (here, The New Yorker) as to which facts are presented. We're not talking about a misquotation here, and it's possible that the New Yorker had legal considerations in mind, and chose not to reprint a section of the report which could be construed as calling Bowyer a liar. To use our reading of what we consider a primary source over a high-quality secondary one, we'd have to be talking about a straightforward matter of fact (not interpretation or analysis, per WP:PRIMARY), and that's not what we have here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to meet WP:GNG from the sources in the article already. --Jayron32 11:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The wide variety of non-trivial sources over a long-term period seems to exceed WP:GNG. Meanderingbartender (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer Could some attention be paid, aside from the issue of deletion at hand, to the disruptive behaviour of Boynamedsue in this discussion. thanks - Roxy the dog 11:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out canvassing is not disruptive behaviour. I'd be happy to discuss it at ANI, if you feel differently. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Irony is that I actually found off-wiki canvassing by UFO believers for this AfD this morning. Apologies, but I will not be linking to it. jps (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should definitely contact an admin about that then, and signal any comments on here you feel might have been canvassed off-wiki. There is absolutely no room for pro-UFO "factions" trying to influence AfD discussions. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOTNEWS, SENSATIONAL, INDISCRIMINATE, and FRIND. There is nothing remarkable about this topic. Reported sightings of UFOs or UAPs by pilots is common enough. Also there has been no real world impact such as identifying a new technology, boosting a regional economy, causing a plane crash, injury, death, and so on. For example due to the Varginha UFO sighting tourism has been markedly affected which demonstrates having an impact. Not so here. Also the Pentagon received more than 366 reports of UAP sightings in 2022 [25], showing that this is merely a common occurrence. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:GNG, the standard isn't how common the event is, but how widely it has been covered in high-quality, reliable secondary sources. On that topic, see above: I think it's fairly well-established that the subject does pass GNG by any commonly-shared definition of HQRS. Which of the reasons for deletion do you think applies here? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No it is not only about how widely an event has been covered. As has been stated above, the available RS gives the presumption of a topic meriting its own article. Presumption means it is plausible, possible, or provides reasonable grounds to think it may be notable. But it is not a guarantee.
Here and in your above responses, what I see is, you are claiming this topic is guaranteed because it has been "widely reported" or whatever. Once sources are presented, a more in-depth discussion ensues, which is the definition of this AfD. And the discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article".
Hence, there is nothing remarkable about this event. It's a report of a UFO, like another report of a UFO, like hundreds of other reports of UFOs, and becomes little better than gossip. This Wikipedia article has not reached beyond the level of a news report. And for that see NOTNEWS, "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Likewise a newsworthy event does not automatically bestow inclusion onto a topic. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And, again there has been no discernable impact as a result of reports on this event. There is nothing remarkable about it. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've cited WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which gives four specific cases of article types that apply to it: summary-only descriptions of creative works, lyrics databases, listings of unexplained statistics and exhaustive logs of software updates. It further says that, to avoid falling foul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. Are you saying that you don't think this article contains data put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources? Otherwise, I'm struggling to see the policy-based objection you're making here, short of your expressed opinion that you want the article deleted: as that much-cited essay says, such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First of all see WP:NOTEVERYTHING where it says "...consensus is that the following are good examples of what Wikipedia is not. The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive." Therefore, since, in my opinion, this topic does not merit inclusion, and Wikipedia is not a repository for indiscriminately added information, this falls into that category. If the topic doesn't qualify then it is superficial (as I have described above) or indiscriminately added. We must and should discriminate---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your position here is that WP:GNG can be over-ridden by personal preference. A text book definition of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.--Boynamedsue (talk) 05:56, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to note that this user, like all those users who have voted delete, is a regular poster at Fringe Theories Noticeboard. Canvassing has occurred at that noticeboard. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is demonstrated by coverage from the BBC, The New Yorker, The Times (which called it "one of the most impressive and perplexing testimonies to have found its way into MoD archives"), and others. Thank you to UndercoverClassicist for improving the article. Tim Smith (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
— Actually, coverage in such sources only gives the presumption or possibility of meriting inclusion. Inclusion is not guaranteed or automatic, based on such coverage. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I guess. (Came here from browsing RSN). I am sympathetic to the concerns raised by the delete side here, particularly the question of whether we should have any articles on UFO sightings that have not attracted substantial skeptical coverage. In the abstract I'd be inclined to say we shouldn't. But IMO the work that has been done on the article makes a strong case that solid encyclopedic coverage is possible in this particular instance. -- Visviva (talk) 06:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
— In fact, it is the unavailability of substantial skeptical coverage that causes the coverage in this article to be out of balance and lacking in parity. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a misreading of WP:UNDUE, which says that coverage should be balanced in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. If you think that's not the case, could you provide some HQRS covering the subject matter from another perspective? Otherwise, if such "substantial skeptical coverage" does not exist in published, reliable sources, there's no break of WP:UNDUE. Likewise, WP:PARITY explicitly concerns parity of sources: you haven't suggested any sources which aren't already included, so this would also seem to be a fairly clear misreading or misapplication of the guideline. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think you have given an interesting interpretation to UNDUE. I'm not calling it wrong, nor am I calling what I said wrong. What I mean is this event has been ignored by academia or other acknowledged experts - skeptics if you will. As was said above, this is about context - where normally reliable sources cover fringe (sensational) stories such as this, probably because they consider it newsworthy, and it attracts readers.
What I mean by UNDUE is the coverage is not in balance because only one side of this story has been covered. This story does not have the benefit of a reliable, independent third-party evaluation of the pilot's claim. This includes no scientific or academic sources that discuss this. This means that UNDUE prominence is being given to this story.
PARITY again points to the lack of available skeptical sources, because what we have now is one sided. The editor just above pointed out the lack of substantial scientific coverage. So to give an example, regarding Creation science, academia has pushed back in a big way. Same with Intelligent design. Such has not happened here because it has not garnered interest in the scientific community. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be confusing your own definition of "undue weight" with that provided by WP:UNDUE. You might feel that the article is unbalanced relative to the sources that should exist, or that you would like to exist, but WP:UNDUE specifically deals with the sources that do exist. There is no policy argument for deleting an article based on how its topic would or should have been covered in sources that do not exist. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not my own personal definition of UNDUE. By publishing a Wikipedia article based only on witness based newspaper reports, is focusing on a minority view, which is a merely a handful of people claiming this happened. What is lacking is analysis of the bigger picture by third party analysists. In the Teheran citing mentioned below third party analysts pointed to celestial objects such as, perhaps a planet. Another pointed to a meteor shower that happened around that time. These are mainstream views, and UFO sightings deviate from this norm. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A UFO sighting, per the definition adopted by Britannica and explicitly stated in this article, is simply any aerial object or optical phenomenon not readily identifiable to the observer. There's nothing non-mainstream about saying that people sometimes see objects or optical phenomena in the sky that they cannot readily identify. No non-mainstream explanation for the reported phenomena has been offered. I'm really not seeing the controversial viewpoint you're arguing against, unless you're saying that "UFO" automatically means something paranormal or alien, which would contradict the definition used by the (very) HQRS cited and indeed by practically everyone working in the field. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mainstream is the scientific or academic consensus. And it's about context. So far I have never said anything about alien or paranormal. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sourcing has improved since the nomination, as is sometimes, if not often, the case with AfDs. 5Q5|✉ 13:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm skeptical about unidentified flying objects, but my personal feelings about the subject are not important. I think this article, with sources from The Times, The Daily Telegraph and the BBC passes WP:GNG. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Basically per WP:Hey. Over-zealousness in some quarters has led to people simply trying to delete ghost/cryptid/UFO sighting articles because “they’re not real”. They don’t seem to get that whether they’re real or not (and I doubt many !voting keep here are true believers in UFOs) doesn’t actually matter in whether articles are kept or not. What matters is whether reliable sources covered them, and in this case, they did. Obviously our coverage should also not assert that UFOs are real but that’s a content issue, not a DELREASON. FOARP (talk) 05:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have hit the nail on the head. There is some highly ideological commentary on this page, which doesn't seem to be based in any of our policies.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not involved in this field much but see this RSN discussion for a classic example of the thinking being applied here: any book not explicitly written from the POV of sceptics must be unreliable even if we're very clear in the article that we're talking about pseudoscience. FOARP (talk) 08:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to think that delete voters are angry because they think that UFOs aren't "real". This is a complete misapprehension of my position and, I would not hesitate to add, the position of others who have worked on this subject. The problem is that the claimed literature on UFOs is written in a way that is sloppy because of the boosterism. There are a lot of people who are excited by UFOs because, as they say in the X-Files, they want to believe. Thus, lovingly documenting even the most mundane and unremarkable claims ends up happening in the context of UFOlogy. The problem is, this "data collection" (scare quotes intentional) is so poorly accounted that it becomes nearly unusable in the context of documenting actual occurrences. So many of these sightings turn out to be mundane misidentifications, delusions, and hoaxes that the null hypothesis is that this is what they all are. However, the "sources" which report these things do not take this WP:MAINSTREAM analysis seriously either for lack of knowing that this is the mainstream approach or because they disdain it outright. We are left, then, with awful sourcing for individual sightings such as what we have here. This is not the case for all sightings. Some are famous enough to have sources which properly contextualize them. But this particular sighting was only noticed by charlatans and third-rate reporters (or, at the most, reporters who are not meeting the bar of due diligence in fact checking). This is the objection we have. The normal games of source finding just do not apply when you are talking about a subject that is consigned to credulity within even otherwise upstanding newsrooms. jps (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (I agree that the FTN post is non-neutral and that FTN is a biased group, however, given the lack of enthusiasm for curtailing such project/community notifications in general, and the longstanding practice of ignoring WP:CANVAS when it comes to FTN in particular, I think that those concerns should be addressed on another forum.)
The article summarizes a reported UFO sighting cited to what are generally regarded as HQRS. The problem is that this article covering an undeniably FRINGE topic merely describes the event and quotes witness testimony without providing any context from HQRS representing the prevailing stance of experts in the relevant fields (scientists, academic skeptics). All UFO sightings fall under bullet point 4 of WP:EXTRAORDINARY: Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, [...] No matter how dispassionately an exceptional claim is presented, no matter how carefully we attribute statements ("Bowyer said" etc.), and no matter how many lay RS credulously cover it, it should not appear on WP if it cannot be appropriately contextualized:

The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only among the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative.

Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance

Right now we lack sources that evaluate the legitimacy/interpretations of the sighting from the perspective of the mainstream skeptical stance on UFOs, by people qualified in the relevant fields. Per PARITY, criticism of the event could even come from non-academic secondary RS. But what we can't have is a simple summary of what the witnesses said they saw and their interpretations of it, because what they said they saw is plainly under the purview of FRINGE and thus just because a quote is accurate and verifiably attributed to a particular source does not mean that the quote must necessarily be included in an article. Basically all we have is quotes, and basically none of them are appropriately contextualized. JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a major misreading of both WP:FRINGE and WP:EXTRAORDINARY here: many of these points have already been made in the discussion, but both guidelines apply to asserting the truth of a certain claim. The article does not claim that aliens visited Alderney. It is not a WP:FRINGE or WP:EXTRAORDINARY idea to say that a pilot made the reports cited in the article. Indeed, nothing stated as fact in the article is unverifiable or even particularly controversial: the potential implications of those facts might be, but that's a completely separate matter.
I hate to repeat a point made many times already, but in response to The problem is that this article covering an undeniably FRINGE topic merely describes the event and quotes witness testimony without providing any context from HQRS representing the prevailing stance of experts in the relevant fields (scientists, academic skeptics: if there is material from HQRS representing sceptical views, it should be included, but there's no policy-based reason to delete an article based on the assertion that "there must be sources" which express a particular view, particularly when that article's subject already passes GNG from the material available. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but it doesn't pass GNG until the discussion is over and other considerations are taken into account, such as what has been elucidated in this discussion. And I am not seeing "a major misreading of both WP:FRINGE and WP:EXTRAORDINARY here." The above description by JoelleJay is right on point. In fact it is well said. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, EXTRAORDINARY (a policy, not a guideline) and FRINGE do not only apply to asserting valuations of a topic in wikivoice; they do not even require a fringe view to be articulated in our article. EXTRAORDINARY covers any claims that contradict the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, it doesn't require that those claims have to have already been explicitly debunked. The claims of the pilot defy the mainstream understanding of atmospheric and physical sciences, and the event's characterization by the media as a "UFO sighting" puts it squarely in the category of FRINGE just as a sasquatch sighting would be. The section on attribution makes it clear that even when a quote about a FRINGE topic is accurately reproduced and verifiably attributed (as in the given Bigfoot example), it must not be included without contextualization making it clear that any claims therein are at odds with prevailing consensus. WP:FRINGELEVEL states Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. It adds Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources. If there are not RS available to provide that context, the material should not be in the article. Since this article is almost entirely sourced to (even secondary repetition of) a primary recounting of a FRINGE experience, it cannot comply with this direction. JoelleJay (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Starting from Wikipedia's own definition of a UFO as An unidentified flying object (UFO) is any perceived aerial phenomenon that cannot be immediately identified or explained., and echoing the comment made below by User:North8000, I really don't see anything exceptional, fringe or, again, even particularly controversial. I think you might be assuming that "UFO" means "alien spacecraft" or even "physical entity". Note in particular the word perceived in the definition. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep UFO doesn't mean aliens, it means unidentified flying object (or apparent object) IMO no, it wasn't aliens, it was some other phenomena that didn't get figured out. That people saw and reported something that they saw isn't fringe it is reality. A claim that it was aliens would be fringe but such is not the title or content or claim of this article. At a quick glance it appears that it was widely reported by RS's. Wikipedia is the place to come to read about the particulars including what was reported. Disclaimer: I only did a quick overview of the sources, not a deep dive. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jayron32 and Tim Smith. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article does not make any claim or even hypothesis that it was an alien craft. Further, it doesn't even cover anybody else making that claim or hypothesis. It covers people seeing an unexplained phenomena. North8000 (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Most of the arguments are relating to sources which simply repeat assertions something was seen. These amount to WP:ITEXISTS, which is not a valid reason to keep an article. As Steve Quinn points out above, there is nothing about this report that stands out from the many, many other UFO sightings, and it has not generated any real in-depth coverage. This is WP:NOTNEWS, and does not substantiate an independent article. It's yet another trivial entry in the "we don't know what we saw" category of media reports. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The 1976 Tehran incident (on Wikipedia) has analytic sources [26]. This shows that these types of sources are needed for this article. Otherwise, there is only a regurgitation of witness testimony, which amounts to nothing. All that is left is sensational news coverage of testimonials - "he said this", "they said that" and so on. The only reason it got coverage is because it's called a UFO. Without that UFO label (sensational) it probably would not have been picked up by the news media. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's as may be, but it was picked up by the media, and by several sources weeks, months and years afterwards. WP:GNG is passed and WP:NOTNEWS isn't a concern, since long-term coverage in HQRS can be demonstrated.
Edited to add: it's worth saying that most of the academic study of UFO sightings comes from folklorists: that is, people who are interested in them as narratives that people construct to explain things that they see or think they see. If you look at the academic discussion on UFOs, you'll find very few articles trying to prove what they are or aren't, and far more talking about the social and cultural conditions that lead certain people to attach certain explanations to certain phenomena. This recent-ish article is a good example. It seems strange to insist on a source "debunking" something where no serious source has made a controversial claim about it .UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this, I've now added a footnote, citing Britannica, that "UFO" is here defined as any aerial object or optical phenomenon not readily identifiable to the observer. As many commenters here have pointed out, it's certainly not fringe or extraordinary to say that sometimes people see or report seeing aerial objects or optical phenomena that they cannot readily identify. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I never claimed that debunking was needed. Debunking is different from providing analysis. In the Tehran incident analysts provided context with stating that it might have been a celestial object, such as a planet. Another analyst said a meteor shower occurred around that time. So the pilots in Tehran may have been chasing natural celestial phenomena. And I don't think anyone in this discussion is claiming that debunking is needed. Also, contrary to the above NOTNEWS is a concern. To wit: ...not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia [and]...most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. Also this sighting has no historical significance (also per NOTNEWS).
And the academic study you cited is exactly on point about the academic counterpoint needed in a Wikipedia article such as this. The author is doctoral student who was published in an academic journal. He applies folklore theory, an academic discipline, and cognitive anthropology, which speaks for itself as an academic discipline. This is a professional study. Pertaining to this particular journal: "The contents of the Journal reflect a wide range of professional concerns and theoretical orientations. Articles present significant research findings and theoretical analyses from folklore and related fields." ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that we're probably not going to agree here, though I do appreciate your time in continuing to explain your point of view. As I understand it, you've made a couple of arguments:
1. WP:NOTNEWS: that the article is simply a news report, and so meets c14 of the deletion criteria. However, the topic has been discussed at length in multiple sources outside its news cycle: even if you remove those within a week of the event from the article altogether, it would still pass GNG comfortably.
2. That the article meets WP:GNG, but should be excluded for some other reason: in your comments above, for instance, you've mentioned that it "has no historical significance", and that few academics have attempted to explain what might "really" have happened. The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is that it has received significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources: saying that GNG doesn't "count" because you don't think those sources should have covered it, or you don't like how they did cover it, is simply WP:IDL. As we've established, WP:DUEWEIGHT is fully satisfied as long as the balance of coverage in reliable sources is accurately reflected in the article. WP:CONLEVEL applies here: an individual AfD discussion between a handful of editors can't impose different standards for notability than those used across the encyclopaedia as a whole.
3. That the article deals with WP:FRINGE material, and therefore sources presenting the mainstream point of view are needed. Leaving aside whether WP:FRINGE is an argument for deletion (which it generally isn't), everything in the article is pedestrian, verifiable and cited to mainstream sources: it is, by definition, not fringe material if it's being reported as fact in the BBC, the Times, the New Yorker and so on. I don't think you've given an example of a non-mainstream claim made in the article that needs to be balanced.
I appreciate that you've got a clear idea of what you'd like the article, and its sources, to look like. However, deletion needs to work by policy, not an editor's personal opinion of what they would like or not like Wikipedia to have. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not my personal opinion. And please stop trying to throw shade on my contributions here by minimizing them as personal opinion. Also, that is just rhetoric for the benefit of the closer. And you are not the authority on "deletion needs to work on policy." As an editor in good standing, I am allowed to interpret policy and guidelines. I never said that newspaper sources should not have covered it nor did I say that I didn't like how they did it. This kind of coverage is common. Please stop trying to put words in my mouth - again probably for the benefit of the closer. And no one is trying to impose different standards for notability in this discussion. It seems that these are standards that you are not used to dealing with and this comes through in your arguments. And these standards are wholly appropriate and valid. And I have to say, FRINGE material has been, is, and will continue to be covered in the press. Just because you don't think so, doesn't mean it's not true. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple reliable sources have reported on this incident. While the article may require some amount of cleanup to comply with WP:FRINGE, that is a separate issue from whether the article should be deleted. Partofthemachine (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there isn't a "no UFO sightings or other weird shit" exception to GNG. There are a lot of arguments being made in favor of deletion which unfortunately seem to substitute personal opinion for our policies and guidelines (and to perhaps not actually understand the ones they are invoking, one wonders if we have a bit of a canvasing problem with so many editors who don't understand notability commenting on a deletion discussion). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's been agreed at a recent ANI (against myself) that WP:CANVASS is not applicable here. I think there is a certain viewpoint among sceptic users that mentioning woo adjacent topics without explicitly stating "this is not true" renders any source unreliable, despite WP:GNG. These users frequent FTN quite a lot, and this type of AfD is always notified there. Unfortunately it is difficult to see a way round the problems arising from this within current policy guidelines which explicitly state this is not canvassing.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Has enough RS now. TNT is not needed (anymore). Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is no need of separate page for fictional things because you can list in existing related article(s) like List of reported UFO sightings or by location lists.DSP2092(talk) 07:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because there is a list for something doesn't allow you to AfD away whatever you object to even when it perfectly fits all WP policies. This is too detailed for a list, the list would contain the short version with a link to the article which has more information. Re your personal opinion assessment "fictional things" – please see WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's "too detailed" because 75% of it is primary quotes from witnesses...if you remove those you just get a few sentences saying it happened and that various atmospheric phenomena might have been responsible. JoelleJay (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erick Morikawa[edit]

Erick Morikawa (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)

Failed GNG, no reliable sources for the person. Billytanghh (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Youtube video and an online learning platform aren't exactly reliable sources. The only news reporting I can locate is this Spanish article, in which the subject was merely referenced in passing. Does not appear notable enough to pass either WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zynx Health[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Zynx Health (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:NCORP, WP:SIRS, WP:CORPDEPTH. No indication of being notable. Refs are routine business news. scope_creepTalk 12:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022–23 Cheshunt F.C. season[edit]

2022–23 Cheshunt F.C. season (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)

Clear failure of WP:NSEASONS – this is a club playing at the semi-professional sixth level of English football. Number 57 11:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • That may be a good indication that it's not notable - but it really means nothing. It comes down to GNG sources. Though there are no independent sources in the article. Nfitz (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speed Racing Ultimate (video game series)[edit]

Speed Racing Ultimate (video game 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)

I couldn't find sources discussing these games at all, pretty clearly failing WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article's source list is deceptively shallow, heavily relying on listings from databases. These sources may as well be primary sources as they tend to be scraped from the app listing. None offer meaningful or independent information about any of the games. Vrxces (talk) 05:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete none of the sources are reliable. Most are databases, primary sources, or self-published. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. "Keep" !vote failed to address the nominator's concern. ✗plicit 05:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Ibrahim[edit]

Hamid Ibrahim (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)

BLP lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete written like a promo and not notable
Hadal1337 (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DYCS-TV[edit]

DYCS-TV (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)

Television station lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Perhaps a redirect to Cebu Catholic Television Network might be an WP:ATD? MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DZVG-TV[edit]

DZVG-TV (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)

Television station lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Perhaps a redirect to GMA Network might be an WP:ATD? MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Berger (media executive)[edit]

Eric Berger (media executive) (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)

Businessperson lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is sourced to a number of bylined Variety articles, some of which are quite in depth. Although these are no doubt prompted by press releases, Variety is a perennial reliable source. Here are three articles to support notability:
Oblivy (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Subject of multiple pieces of independently-published coverage dealing substantially with the subject. I find THIS piece in Variety to be particularly compelling. GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 GMA Network. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 07:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DYGM-TV[edit]

DYGM-TV (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)

Television station lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Perhaps a redirect to GMA Network might be an WP:ATD? MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lost in Space (film). The argument that the subject meets WP:NACTOR is on the whole unconvincing since he has had only one indisputably significant role. Since the subject will still be a reasonably common search term for those interested in the film, redirecting is a good WP:ATD. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Johnson (actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. No WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:NACTOR. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on how you came to that conclusion? Lost in Space seems to be his only notable role and there's little to no coverage of him.-KH-1 (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Meets WP:NACTOR. I added a few sources that reference his role in Lost in Space. He has one cinematography credit on a 2010 short film, so I don't see a case for notability as a cinematographer. A notable child actor doesn't become non-notable if they don't continue acting as an adult. Novemberjazz 02:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sure how he meets NACTOR as he's known for only one role, has a thin filmography, and hasn't done anything of note since the early 2000s. The three sources added to the article do not establish notability as they only mention him in passing. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 05:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Child actors are a special category. In this case, the only film in which he had a major supporting role is something of a cult film, and there is at least some evidence of that, but perhaps not enough. I recall that an article on Michael McGovern was deleted in the past few years. Bearian (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Lost in Space, however, is not being discussed here, but one of its actors known only for a minor role therein. Notability is not inherited. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 17:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 11:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kozhaniy Olen'[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2012. I did a Google search for news, and what happened was a first one for me: there was nothing there. Nada. Niet. It obviously fails WP:GNG, and I'm surprised it lasted 11 years. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 07:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did end up finding links under the supposed Russian spelling (Кожаный Олень), but I don't speak Russian, so I cannot assess the little sources I found. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 07:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Using Google translate to evaluate sources should be nothing to be ashamed of, when the alternative is to erase other contributors' work on a potentially notable subject! small jars tc 14:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's just what I found after five minutes of Googling. I wouldn't say that it's beyond all doubt, but it seems to me that the volume of significant coverage produced without the band's participation is enough to justify notability. Akakievich (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Reliable, in-depth, independent. I'm not seeing or finding three articles that pass all three. This is a common problem in alternative music, but that doesn't change that it's missing here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let’s try relisiting 1 last time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 11:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DYFM-FM[edit]

DYFM-FM (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)

Radio station lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Perhaps a redirect to TV5 Network Inc. might be an WP:ATD? MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment DYFM-FM (or DYNC-FM) is Cebu's first stereo FM station, so this is a notability; however due to the lack of information being given on the history of the station and the station currently being a satellite station (save for some local programs), it could be worthy to let the others decide. If there would be additional information on the early days of DYFM as DYNC-FM and on their other parts, I would keep that article personally. Jhenny38 (Starters talk, My contributions) 12:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The sources in the article are reliable. Sources 2 and 5 talk about the station's current iteration. I found a few more reliable sources which talk about the station's first iteration as DYNC, albeit brief: [27], [28] and [29]; as well as one about the station's iteration as Charlie: [30]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎🙃 01:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Superastig (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) JoelleJay (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Aoidh (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raffaella (musician)[edit]

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

Not meeting notability criteria for musicians; sources used in the article are promotional or streaming sites. I can't find mentions of this person in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. All of the sources in the article are promotional or interviews, and the Allmusic bio also sounds promotional. WP:RSP also states about Allmusic that "Some editors question the accuracy of these websites for biographical details and recommend more reliable sources when available.". JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 05:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most music editors consider AllMusic a reliable source and the bio does not seem promotional to me Atlantic306 (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article are promo and mentions, nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed promo, database style listings, nothing with SIGCOV. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  01:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Page will be moved to 2024 Indian general election in Tripura. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Next Indian general election in Tripura[edit]

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

Another contested draftification which was returned to mainspace without improvement. Likely case of WP:TOOSOON, but currently not enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 09:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Tripura. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep : Similar articles for next Indian general elections in various states are being formed with very less number of citations by many editors. Like the other articles, this article will also be updated with time. Sadly, many article for different topics are in Wikipedia without any citation and in depth coverage. XYZ 250706 (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment : Besides at this moment, the article contains 3 citations. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but change the title format - not a fan of the title but to me a page with the candidates standing in a near future national election is self-evidently notable. Whilst WP:TOOSOON or WP:CRYSTAL may apply, it seems silly to delete this kind of page when the information will necessarily soon be available. JMWt (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:ROUTINE election coverage for a single district in an upcoming election. The overall election is already covered in Next Indian general election. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment : Similar articles for Indian general elections in different states have previously been formed in Wikipedia for previous elections and are being formed for 2024 election. XYZ 250706 (talk) 09:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indian general election articles do not contain detailed result of each state (vote share and seats of major parties). XYZ 250706 (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the same way as we have articles for the upcoming US elections for each state, even when candidates aren't yet known (e.g. 2024 United States Senate election in Maryland), it makes sense that we should have the same for Indian states (reminder that Tripura, with its size of two Delawares or half of a Maryland, is a full state and not a district as claimed above). Chaotic Enby (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move: the sources cited don't appear to be fully integrated or used, but they do seem to show that the election in this state has been covered in secondary sources. However, per WP:CURRENTLY, the title of this and similar pages should be 2024 Indian general election in Tripura. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BD2412 T 03:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny Kennedy (rugby union)[edit]

Jonny Kennedy (rugby 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)

Non-notable player, even by the somewhat more lax standards of the old WP:NSPORT (and definitely not by the new). Not seeing any significant coverage other than a few things about his vitamin company. Primefac (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Rugby union, England, and Scotland. Primefac (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seems to be GNG coverage of his business career here, and there is some sourcing that would likely pass GNG on his rugby career as well. Article obviously needs improving, and perhaps should be more evenly split to his business side now, but I think there's enough out there. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Can't really find much about his career due to early retirement. Played for Scotland U20 and under two dozen matches for Sale. Not sure if his vitamin business is enough for significance, but article badly needs updating if it stays. RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom. BLP, bails GNG and BIO. Sources in the article are stats, a routine sports news about contract signing, and an interview, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Keep vote above found no sources during their BEFORE so there is nothing else to eval. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  18:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Workers Party of Ukraine (Marxist–Leninist)[edit]

Workers Party of Ukraine (Marxist–Leninist) (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 can't find enough sourcing to show that this passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 10:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Academy Shopping Centre[edit]

The Academy Shopping Centre (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)

As was said when it was prodded back in 2018, "NN shopping center. According to the article, it has only 10 stores making it very routine (WP:ROTM)." Searches turned up zero in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 09:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has been improved since it was proposed for deletion in 2018 making the rationale irrelevant. Besides, WP:ROTM is just an essay and not a policy or guideline and there are now multiple sources here establishing notability per WP:GNG. The building is also Category B listed and thus is presumed notable per the first bullet of WP:GEOFEAT. Garuda3 (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also added additional sources since Onel5969 nominated the article for deletion. Garuda3 (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The sources in the article aren't great however as noted above it's a listed building and as far as I know listed buildings are considered de-facto notable. Had it not been a listed building I don't believe there would've been enough notability to justify this article if i'm honest, Anyway I've converted the cites to archive so it has now viewable cites. –Davey2010Talk 13:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is that only Category A, being of national importance, are automatically notable. It's similar to the US, where buildings on the NRHP are notable, but buildings on state historical registers are not automatically notable. Onel5969 TT me 23:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah okay,, Well if Cat B's aren't defacto notable then I would certainly support deletion here, –Davey2010Talk 00:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GEOFEAT. Despite the claim above, any national government heritage listing counts. Nowhere is it written that only category A qualifies in Scotland. Category B buildings are defined as "Buildings of special architectural or historic interest which are major examples of a particular period, style or building type". All Category A, B and C heritage listings in Scotland are at a national level and are thus of national importance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - from Listed buildings in Scotland: "Category B: Buildings of regional or more than local importance, or major examples of some particular period, style or building type which may have been altered."
  • Keep. While the shopping centre doesn't appear notable per se, the building in which it is housed is, as evidenced by its listing. There are sources online to expand on the history of the site at Aberdeen's local studies website https://www.silvercityvault.org.uk and the building has a page with a small list of references here: https://www.scottisharchitects.org.uk/building_full.php?id=200496. The article's name should probably be changed to The Academy, Aberdeen. Rupples (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 07:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Marguerite, Duchess of Anjou[edit]

Marie Marguerite, Duchess of Anjou (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. If I'm wrong and she is notable, then her only notability is through her husband. DrKay (talk) 05:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Spanish version, as with other languages, offer Spanish references that would allow the subject to meet WP:GNG ([31][32][33]). While WP:INHERITED normally applies, the subject is a claimant to a royal lineage, and ancestry is precisely what it is all based on. I would normally lean towards a weak keep. However, I don't know enough of the subject to comment on this, WP:INHERITED must still be considered, and overall other editors probably have better feedback based on this. Best regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:INHERITED isn't a content guideline nor is it a policy. It's part of an essay about arguments to be avoided at AfD, so it needn't be considered at all. The subject's notability should be determined by coverage in reliable sources. That the coverage may be because of some antiquated title doesn't matter. pburka (talk) 03:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the Spanish sources she meets notability, and as was pointed out WP:INHERITED is merely an essay. Atchom (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cannot see how the sources meet WP:GNG. The sources mention her as the daughter of her fahter and the wife of her husband. Theoreticalmawi (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Out of the five sources listed in the Spanish page of the subject, only three are accessible online and one the first article constitutes significant coverage, with the second only has trivial mention and the third is behind paywall. There are more sources in the French page, but I only see two suitable sources: one by El Mondo and another by purepeople. The rest are either inaccessible (offline publications or behind paywall), trivial mentions, or unsuitable sites like blogs, Youtube and facebook page. There seem to be a number of significant coverage enough to pass WP:GNG, but honestly the individual has very little accomplishments other than what being born into the nobility gave her access to. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing fundamentally wrong with offline sources, sources behind a paywall and even sources that are now a dead link. If the sources can be accessed by someone (e.g. paying for a subscription, visiting a library, using the Wayback Machine), WP:V is satisfied. We should WP:AGF on the part of the editors that added these. ~Kvng (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator is a sockpuppet and no one has weighed in here so I'm closing this as a procedural keep. No penalty against a future trip to AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sadanandan Rangorath[edit]

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

Subject of the article is not notable per WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER per the sources present. All the sources I got from a google search are passing mentions and film reviews. Thesixserra (talk) 06:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mystery Science Theater 3000 characters. RL0919 (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Clayton Forrester (Mystery Science Theater 3000)[edit]

Dr. Clayton Forrester (Mystery Science Theater 3000) (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 coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The article is a plot summary with a single citation (academic) to a passing comment the actor made about the character. If nobody can find anything to rescue this, I'd suggest SOFTDEL solution of redirecting this to List of Mystery Science Theater 3000 characters (which is sadly unreferenced, but probably rescuable). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, it's unlikely that someone would search for this specific title, but a redirect is harmless. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Mystery Science Theater 3000 characters. I think a redirect is preferable over outright deletion since readers may be looking for information on the character, and a viable redirect target exists. The list is very rough shape, but I could see areas for improvement. I did find some coverage for the character, but in my opinion, it is too limited to justify an independent article. I could see other MST3K characters being redirected into this list. I would also not oppose a redirect to Mystery Science Theater 3000, but I do see a potential in a separate character list. It's a shame as I am a huge MST3K fan, but the coverage I did find seemed rather limited. Apologies for the lengthy response. Aoba47 (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Agree with the idea of redirecting to List of Mystery Science Theater 3000 characters. There's not enough for a standalone article, but probably enough to warrant inclusion in that list. Red Fiona (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MST3K. If we’re going to redirect a character nobody remembers from WotW we should also redirect the arguably more famous Dr. Forrester Dronebogus (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with a redirect, but I find your logic (that because we're redirecting a lesser-known character, we should redirect a better-known one) to be odd. Rhindle The Red (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WAAA-LD[edit]

WAAA-LD (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 non-FCC source currently in the article is the station's listing on RabbitEars.info (which shows three channels of nothing — note that the article asserts It is currently not known what programming the station broadcasts.). The only apparently-known affiliation was carriage of All News Channel that supposedly ended in 2004 (notwithstanding that ANC shut down in 2002). I can't imagine a station like this comes close to even approaching the GNG. (And that's not even getting into the potential of these obscure articles attracting less-than-accurate information… if you see any claims elsewhere that this is a Nexstar-owned CBS affiliate (which I only recently reverted out of the article), you're looking at either a mirror (not a valid source) or someone that probably got their info from Wikipedia.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Station is in Valparaiso carrying a CBS station from Indianapolis when WBBM-TV is nearby? Nope, not real, and this doesn't pass GNG; I don't even think this is an actively broadcasting station. Nate • (chatter) 15:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Aoidh (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aycha Sawa[edit]

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

Subject appear to be a non-notable municipal level official. Does not pass WP:NPOL, and a WP:BEFORE search only returned routine coverage from local news. Curbon7 (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep: Normally, I'd probably lean delete, but she's the first woman elected to a city office in a major American city so I think I'd soft keep this. The article needs some improvement though and is on the line for me. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable politician, being the first minority in a position is an interesting piece of historical trivia, but you can't hang a hat on just that. If this person does significant things in the future, come back and make an article, and that can still have its place in the lede. Til then, the coverage is either local in scope or routine X-runs-against-Y political coverage. Zaathras (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note, off-wiki canvassing. - here. Zaathras (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hysterectomy Educational Resources and Services Foundation[edit]

Hysterectomy Educational Resources and Services Foundation (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 proposed this for deletion as Seeing a bynch of passing mentions, but not the kind of in-depth, independent coverage that would be required to establish notability. This was contested with nothing more than deserves a closer look at AfD, so here we go. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I've reviewed the current sources (except for boston.com which is behind a paywall) and looked for additional ones. The organization is mentioned only in passing in everything I reviewed. ~Kvng (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Sources are insubstantial, as previously mentioned. Any other secondary sources fail to establish notability. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no extensive independent coverage. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gage Canning[edit]

Gage Canning (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 Joeykai (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The refs are either team-specific blogs or passing mentions. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Run of the mill minor leaguer without the needed depth of coverage for notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Tanamor[edit]

Jason Tanamor (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)

Besides being non-notable, the page also looks more like an advertisement than an actual encycopledic entry. Statements like “will appeal to Twilight fans” are clear evidences of these. I considered editing the page, but a large percentage of it just advertisement. Bulls123 (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was not properly transcluded to the log until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 04:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Philippines, and Oregon. Shellwood (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT. It's possible that the subject is notable, although I'm still unsure, the the article needs to be re-written entirely if that is the case. The reliable sources appear to be hyper-local to his hometown of Rock Island, Illinois and along the lines of "local man writes book". Other refs include Wordpress sites, at least one deadlink, and other unreliable sources. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KSquirrel[edit]

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

Appears to be non-notable software due to lack of sufficient coverage. Previous AfD in 2009 ended with no consensus, and none of the links provided in that discussion seem like suitable sources. External searches did not yield suitable sources as well. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: In the previous AfD, the following sources were found: 1, 2, 3 and 4. Admittedly I'm not familiar with software-related journalism, but those coverage do look like software download pages or one of the countless "# of best software for X" lists. Honestly I want to know what the community think of this article Tutwakhamoe (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG, WP:NSOFT, and WP:NORG. This is churnalism, this is trivial, finally this and this are nothing more than a brief description on a download page; none of those show notability for the article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Comparison of image viewers. It makes sense that it would have been kept in 2009, because it was relatively current then, but if it hasn't been maintained in 15 years and there's been no continuing coverage then it's not really notable (I used KDE for a while and I've never heard of this program). jp×g 09:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think a redirect to the comparison article would do much, as the inclusion criteria seems to be having a Wikipedia article. SWinxy (talk) 08:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 03:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot (Faking It)[edit]

Pilot (Faking It) (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 every TV episode needs an article. There are some reviews present, but not convinced they support notability. This TV series doesn't have an individual article for every episode, so that arguement for inclusion is invalid. In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show.

Previous REDIRECT was reverted, so bringing it here for discussion. Let's decide once and for all if this episode is notable or not. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Venable, Nick (2014-04-22). "Faking It Review: Stereotypes Meet Screwball Faux Lesbian Dramedy". CinemaBlend. Archived from the original on 2023-05-07. Retrieved 2023-05-07.

      The review notes: "But it was still with an impartial mind only sprinkled with antipathy that I bussed into the first episode of the new teen dramedy Faking It, in which the central hook involves two best friends posing as a lesbian couple to attain more popularity in their trope-filled high school. By the end, though, I almost wanted to curl up inside a locker with a bag of milk and watch Sifl and Olly on my phone. ... I could easily throw more hatred at Liam’s “I’ll fuck anything as long as it understands my rules” attitude towards women, or the fact that the two leads are already outed as non-lesbians twice. But the episode did have a few rays of sunshine to balance the vomit jokes and the Shia LaBeouf reference. Karma’s initial goal of pretending to be blind to fit in was an inspired way to start the plot off, and I like the way the foul language is bleeped rather than substituted for corny slang."

    2. McHatton, Nick (2014-04-23). "Awkward Review: An Outlook of Doubtful". TV Fanatic. Archived from the original on 2023-05-07. Retrieved 2023-05-07.

      Editors at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 260#TV Fanatic found TV Fanatic to be marginally reliable. The review notes: "Thankfully, as Faking It Season 1 Episode 1 points out, there is life past the phony relationship. It's just a matter of getting to that point first - but with both sides "un-outing" themselves in the premiere, the timeline can't be very long. ... The supporting characters of Shane and Liam are pretty one note at the moment. Liam, particularly, is just about finding the right buddy for the night and his general ideas of women in general are rather sad considering how progressive the show is trying to be."

    3. Swift, Andy (2014-04-22). "Did You Fall For MTV's Faking It?". TVLine. Archived from the original on 2023-05-07. Retrieved 2023-05-07.

      The review notes: "There’s a magical high school in Austin, Texas, where being different is a cause for celebration, rather than an excuse for ridicule — so much so that two social nobodies can skyrocket to instant popularity simply by pretending to be lesbians. That’s the basic premise behind MTV’s new comedy Faking It, which premiered Tuesday, as best friends Amy (Rita Volk) and Karma (American Idol‘s Katie Stevens) engage in a faux-lesbian relationship after some misinformed encouragement from new pal Shane (United States of Tara‘s Michael Willett)."

    4. L., Melissa (2014-04-24). "How Is MTV Indoctrinating Your Kids Today? The Debut of 'Faking It'". New York Observer. Archived from the original on 2023-05-07. Retrieved 2023-05-07.

      The article reviews the first episode of the TV series. It notes: "When that fails, Lauren just loudly grumbles that she wants to ship them off to the Isle of Lesbos. It’s an idle threat that the school’s Queen Bee — Shane, who “came out in the 4th grade” — overhears. He notes that “bullying the gays is so late ‘90s,” and as it so happens, he has been “craving lesbian energy in his life”. Amy and Karma’s fake relationship gives them instant celebrity status, which naturally includes an invitation to a party at his house. When they try to tell Shane that they aren’t gay, he just accuses them of being closeted. ... While Karma loved how Amy “sold” their relationship, Amy may actually be struggling with her sexuality, which is the realest thing about this show so far. Can’t wait to see what happens next week when MTV continues trying to make teen open-mindedness happen."

    5. Hale, Mike (2014-04-21). "Their Surprise Route to Popularity". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2023-05-07. Retrieved 2023-05-07.

      The review notes: "If any of these shows are genuinely subversive, however, it’s probably MTV’s “Faking It,” on Tuesday. The network’s latest attempt to get another scripted teenage comedy off the ground (so far “Awkward” has been its only notable success), the series is set in a fantasy version of Austin, Tex., where a high school’s overprivileged mean girl can fume that she’s being discriminated against. ... And for ballast, there’s the executive producer and writer Carter Covington, who worked on the ABC Family comedy “10 Things I Hate About You.” His script for the “Faking It” pilot has a snap and cleverness reminiscent of that earlier show."

    6. Ng, Philiana (2014-04-15). "MTV's 'Faking It' Pilot Debuting Early (Exclusive Video)". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 2023-05-07. Retrieved 2023-05-07.

      The article notes: "MTV is giving early access to the full pilot of Faking It, a half-hour comedy revolving around two best friends, Karma (Katie Stevens) and Amy (Rita Volk), who pretend to be lesbians to gain social standing."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow "Pilot" (Faking It) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky 7 (film)[edit]

Lucky 7 (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, only 1 review found in a BEFORE. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Hughes, Mike (2003-07-19). "'Lucky 7' actress finds that opposites attract". Public Opinion. Gannett News Service. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14 – via Newspapers.com.

      THe article notes: "Sure, people learn that lesson on reality shows and in TV movies like "Lucky 7," airing 8 p.m. Sunday, July 20 on ABC Family. It stars Kimberly Williams-Paisley and Patrick Dempsey. But Williams-Paisley also has learned those realities in real life. ... That plot is a stretch. Viewers might agree with the character who tells Amy, "this is beyond stupid."However, you'll be glued because of the appeal of romance and of Williams-Paisley."

    2. McDonough, Kevin (2003-07-20). "Die-hard romantics may be put off by 'Lucky 7'". The Morning Call. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Fans of predictable tearjerkers might enjoy "Lucky 7" (ABC Family at 8, TV-PG, D). Gail O'Grady appears as a dying mother whose parting gifts to her 7-year-old daughter include a "timeline" of advice that instructs her to run for school office, hit the books at college, travel abroad for interesting experiences and have six boyfriends before settling down with Mr. Right. ... A rickety subplot about a faked romance may be one contrivance too many for even the most die-hard romantics. Brief scenes of casual sex may also put off parents who like to watch such fare with their children."

    3. Butler, Ruth (2003-07-18). "'The Restaurant' has intriguing ingredients". The Grand Rapids Press. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.

      The article notes: ""Lucky 7" is a frothy original movie starring Kimberly Williams-Paisley (newly married star of "Father of the Bride" and (cringe) "According to Jim") and Patrick Dempsey airing at 8 p.m. Sunday on ABC Family. She's following Mom's dictate: that she marry boyfriend number 7, whomever he may be. But what if she falls in love with No. 6? Cute."

    4. Holschbach, Amy (2003-07-20). "When sparks fly: Manitowoc native gets creative in TV movie, 'Lucky 7'" (pages 1 and 2). The Herald Times Reporter. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: " "Lucky 7" opens in Amy's childhood home which Wanek described as "understated, cozy and yet locked in time." The beachfront property is where the premise of the movie unfolds. The main character's mother, who is ill, leaves her 7- year-old daughter with a life timeline that plots Amy's career and the advice that reveals she is destined to marry boyfriend No. 7."

    5. Bobbin, Jay (2003-07-19). "Lucky in love? Williams-Paisley courts wedded bliss in new movie". St. Joseph News-Press. Zap2it. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Kimberly Williams-Paisley stars as the heroine of the romantic comedy "Lucky 7" Sunday, July 20, on ABC Family. Her character, Amy, follows a life plan mapped out for her in childhood by her late mother (Gail O'Grady) that includes becoming a lawyer and marrying her seventh boyfriend. The dilemma occurs when No. 6 (Brad Rowe) appears to be "the one," so she maneuvers someone else (Patrick Dempsey) into the mix to shift the sixth man to No. 7."

    6. Keller, Louise (2009-01-22). "Lucky 7: DVD". Urban Cinefile. Archived from the original on 2009-10-09. Retrieved 2023-05-14.

      The review notes: "It's predictable but nicely so, this engaging romantic comedy with compelling leads that reminds us of the value of spontaneity. Kimberly Williams-Paisley and Patrick Dempsey are unlikely lovers who become the perfect match in Lucky 7, a made for television rom-com in which a make-believe weekend becomes the basis for a credible future."

    7. Terrace, Vincent (2021). Television Movies of the 21st Century. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 196. ISBN 978-1-4766-8412-3. Retrieved 2023-05-14 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Seattle-based attorney Amy Myer lives by a detailed time line her late mother gave to her when she was seven years old. In that timeline, Amy could date but it would be the seventh man with whom she would find true love. Despite advice from friends and family that she abandons the list, Amy refuses to do so. Amy has already dated five men but has not found a true connection to any of them. She is currently dating boyfriend number six (Daniel) and believes he should be boyfriend number seven. The situation that develops when Amy asks a friend (Connor) to accompany her to a family wedding and pretend to be her fake fiancée (thus making him number 6) and change her mind afterward (making Daniel number 7) is depicted."

    8. Sanders, Eveliene. "Lucky 7 (2003)". Cinemagazine (in Dutch). Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.

      The article notes: "‘Lucky 7′ is van het type standaard romantische comedy maar dan wel écht erg leuk. Met mooie, charmante hoofdrolspelers, met veel chemie tussen de acteurs en een mooi verhaal wat, zelfs al is het eigenlijk erg voorspelbaar, toch spannend blijft tot het eind. Een leuke film voor een lekker filmavondje op de bank."

      From Google Translate: "'Lucky 7' is of the standard romantic comedy type, but really fun. With beautiful, charming protagonists, with a lot of chemistry between the actors and a beautiful story that, even if it is actually very predictable, remains exciting until the end. A nice film for a nice movie night on the couch."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lucky 7 to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdrawn, sources identified above are sufficient for notability. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Aoidh (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haley Scarnato[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Haley Scarnato (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)

Absolutely fails WP:NSINGER. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

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

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Sources

    1. Miller, Robin (2015-05-05). "BR Symphony getting idolized *** Outdoor show boasts 'American Idol' alums". The Advocate. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.

      The article notes: "Even though Haley Scarnato didn’t win “American Idol” in 2007, she’s still recognized everywhere she goes. ... Scarnato was speaking from Las Vegas, where she and her country band, Fairchild, were the opening act for Big & Rich’s recent concert. She also opens for Matt Goss’ Ceasar’s Palace show. ... And the experience continues. The show has provided Scarnato opportunities to perform and appear on talk shows, including “Live with Regis and Kelly,” “Access Hollywood,” Mike and Juliet,” “The Ellen DeGeneres Show,” “Extra” and “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.” Now, she’s working on a new EP to be released this summer on iTunes."

    2. Jakle, Jeanne (2010-05-05). "Hometown 'Idol' finalist weighs in on current competition". San Antonio Express-News. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.

      The article notes: "What's Scarnato up to? She's in the midst of a move to Las Vegas because she's found so much performing success there. She's been singing at venues along the strip with S.A. band Third Town, seen two years ago on NBC's Nashville Star. She's also hosting an upcoming S.A. TV show -- The After Party -- which is produced by David Zanardi, formerly of Essay Magazine. It will spotlight food, fun, entertainment and nightlife in San Antonio, Austin and the Hill Country."

    3. Jakle, Jeanne (2015-01-09). "Scarnato says 'Idol' has kept her career buzzing". San Antonio Express-News. Archived from the original on 2020-10-26. Retrieved 2023-05-14.

      The article notes: "When Scarnato isn’t touring with “Ballroom,” she’s traveling with Symphony Idol, which has her and two other “Idol” alums, Lakisha Jones (season six) and Matt Giraud (season eight) singing favorites from artists such as Celine Dion and Journey with a symphony orchestra. ... When she’s back in Vegas, she performs with her country band Fairchild, opening for big names such as John Rich. She’s also the lead singer and dancer for a sexy, high-energy show on an outdoor stage, Fremont Street Hotties."

    4. Franklin, Mark (2009-11-24). "Haley Scarnato talks about Idol, her nickname and her future". The York Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.

      The article notes: "Growing up, Haley Scarnato was an avid gymnast with what she admits was a strange habit. ... By age 15, Haley was singing in a wedding band. By age 24, she was standing on the American Idol stage, a finalist in season six."

    5. Saldaña, Hector (2008-01-13). "Scarnato's tips for 'Idol' wannabes". San Antonio Express-News. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.

      The article notes: "San Antonio's "American Idol" sweetheart Haley Scarnato is living in Nashville, listening to demos for the debut album she'll record this year and mapping out a country pop career. At age 25, it's like living a dream, she says. But if anyone knows about the agony and the ecstasy of the "American Idol" experience, it's Scarnato, who drew wrath and high praise from Simon Cowell, Randy Jackson and Paula Abdul last year -- often depending on what the leggy singer was wearing."

    6. Jakkle, Jeanne (2007-04-13). "No more tears: Haley hits the talk show circuit". San Antonio Express-News. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.

      The article notes: "After taking hits for showing off her long legs in short shorts, Haley Scarnato had planned to dramatically change her look on "American Idol" next week. ... A recap: On Thursday night's show, Scarnato talked about her "Idol" experience with Leno in a scripted bit that spoofed the Geico car insurance ad featuring voice-over actor Don LaFontaine."

    7. Guzman, René A. (2007-03-20). "Scarnato has online following". San Antonio Express-News. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.

      The article notes: "Looks like the Web's getting wild about Haley. Haley Source, Haley.Idols 2007.com and Haley's Comets at MySpace are just some of the Web pages devoted to Haley Scarnato, the San Antonian singing her way up the steps of "American Idol." The hopefuls take to the microphone again tonight on the hit Fox show."

    8. Jakle, Jeanne (2009-04-08). "Scarnato favors Lambert on 'Idol'". San Antonio Express-News. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.

      The article notes: "San Antonio's former "American Idol" finalist Haley Scarnato didn't hesitate to name her favorite season eight contestant the other day when I ran into her at Paloma Blanca Mexican restaurant. ... As for Scarnato's own career, the Taft High grad - who made it to No. 8 in season six of "Idol" - said she was rethinking her first CD. She recently signed with an agent in Los Angeles."

    9. Weinbender, Nathan (2013-10-18). "Ex-'Idol' hopefuls join symphony". The Spokesman-Review. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Any regular "Idol" viewer will recognize the participating vocalists: Haley Scarnato and LaKisha Jones, who were top 10 finishers on the show's sixth season, ... Scarnato, a Texas native who cut her teeth on country songs ..."

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

    Cunard (talk) 09:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as per the multiple reliable sources newspaper coverage identified above that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My original nomination of this article was based on my interpretation of the criteria at WP:NSINGER. Reading the following - "Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable." - it would be appropriate to redirect this article to appropriate season of American Idol, which is what I probably should have done in the first place. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirecting the article would not be appropriate in this case, as Scarnato continued to recieve meaningful news coverage after her time on Idol, as illustrated above. Jpcase (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 03:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP Casino Resort Spa[edit]

IP Casino Resort Spa (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)

Resort lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UniLang[edit]

AfDs for this article:
UniLang (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 internet forum. I have also been over to the forum recently and it looks like it has lost popularity in the linguistics community. It is not even popular now let alone notable. Marsbar8 (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Websites. Shellwood (talk) 09:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only independent source provided is intended to prove this website's placement in an information and communication technology competition, the Stockholm Challenge. Unfortunately, the Stockholm Challenge has since gone defunct and its website has been taken over by a trail running competition, thus making it seem as though the subject is supposed to be a competitive athlete rather than a website. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:Notability is not temporary. If the community/web site/resource was notable at some time, that satisfies WP policy for notability. That said, I see no evidence of such notability in the current article. Cnilep (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with it not being notable.
Hadal1337 (talk) 08:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Bouzoubaa (singer)[edit]

Mohamed Bouzoubaa (singer) (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)

•Delete:Non-Notable Singer: There is only one sentence in this article, And only one source, Fails WP:N PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The sole cited source is the reporting on the death of the subject. Found no further coverage of the subject. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep News of his death was covered by numerous news outlet, all of them celebrating him as a key figure in the popularity of malhun. His death was noted by the ministry of culture (see [66]) and by the King of Morocco [67]. Note that it's hard for me to search for sources in Arabic, especially given the fact that there is a famous politician of the same name. Pichpich (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    First page you just listed is unable to translate to English & the second page is not a reliable source & does not contain enough info to prove notable, real life notabilities like being known or mentioned by royalty does not transfer to wikipedia notability. Fails WP:N PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The machine translation of ref 1 is "The artist, Hajj Muhammad Bouzoubaa, has passed away. We received with deep regret and with deep sorrow the news of the death of the artist, Hajj Muhammad Bouzoubaa, who answered the call of his Lord on Tuesday evening, January 20, 2015, at the age of 74 years. This is how the artistic scene bid farewell to one of the most prominent pioneers and memorizers of the salt, after suffering from illness for many years, especially since 2005. The deceased grew up in a family surrounded by music. Where he learned from his father the arts of Al-Amdah Al-Isawiya and Al-Malhoun. As seated since his youth veterans artists. His talents blossomed in various colors of music, oriental muwashshah performance arts, Andalusian music, melhoun, and others. Until he became one of the most prominent voices leading the poems of the salt. He was also a player on various percussion instruments. He worked in the most famous choirs in the city of Fez, and studied at the Dar Adil Institute for Traditional Music. Our artist has contributed to enriching the national musical and lyrical repertoire with more than 170 songs and poems. It also testifies to his praiseworthy role in preserving the art of salting and endearing it to successive generations. May God bless the deceased with his vast mercy and dwell him in his spacious gardens, and inspire us, his relatives, and his large and small families, beautiful patience and solace. And unto God and to Him we shall return." As for the second ref, if the official webpage of the King of Morocco is not a reliable source for official condolences given by the King of Morocco, I don't know what is. Pichpich (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is just praise for him & sorrow of his passing, it does not mention any specifics of his life, & therefore is not a reliable source. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is notable within his music genre and multiple reliable sources have been brought up for improvement. 128.6.36.94 (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been no other sources found for him. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•Comment- IP User 1.28.6.36.94 is Blocked For Disruptive Editing. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Small sentence about an irrelevant singer. Not enough sources, No photos or other info of the person.
LuxembourgBoy42 (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The refs provided do not satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk)
  • Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified by Pitchpitch in this discussion which is significant coverage for WP:GNG in my view. The shortness of the article and lack of a photo are not relevant to notability, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE- Not Notable, No notable sources. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC) struck second delete vote Atlantic306 (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find an abundance of sources making clear that he was a notable national figure in Morocco, including 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Mccapra (talk) 06:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those sources do not show notability. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they do, because they demonstrate that he was a nationally important figure. Mccapra (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per sources found above. Seacactus 13 (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those sources don't count as they are not referenced in the article yet. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is an invalid rationale. The fact that they exist means that they do show notability, the current state of the article is irrelevant. This is why WP:BEFORE must be done when nominating articles, which you have clearly neglected to do. Seacactus 13 (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    •DELETE- #1 Does Not show notability in/of itself, #2 Does Not show Notability & is an Unreliable source, #3 is just a reporting of his death, #4 is also just a reporting of his death, #5 is also just a reporting of his death. None of This sources Show Notability. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realize that voting delete four times does not help the case right? Please do elaborate in depth as to why these sources do not establish notability. A report of one's death can show notability. Seacactus 13 (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When I die, I'm pretty sure that established news organization won't care. I'm also pretty sure that the King of Morrocco won't send a release lamenting my death. Pichpich (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Many news stations mention & or talk about non-notable peoples deaths. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on now. I know you want to zap the article but that's just nonsense. "And in other important news to report today, a singer that nobody's ever heard about has died". Pichpich (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The #1,#2,#3,#4, and #5 refer to the sources that @Mccapra has listed in this discussion. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm referring to you putting delete by every statement, presumably trying to make a-it appear as if there are more delete votes. Seacactus 13 (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I only did that because I'm a little ocd and forgot the bullet point the first time. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
your dismissal of the sources I found are “unreliable” or “just about his death” is bullshit. On the contrary they establish that he as a highly regarded artist with a long and distinguished career and was regarded as the father of Malhoun. Just because you’ve decided an article should be deleted doesn’t mean you can wilfully blind yourself to sources showing otherwise. Mccapra (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand with the new sources found during this discussion. – bradv 20:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PWA Black Label[edit]

PWA Black Label (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 was in draft mode and was brought out without review. It could go back there but this promotion has been deleted from the main space before and has in fact been salted on top of that (see here for the deletion history). It should be deleted as there has been no real attempt to get this article past the notability and verifiability guidelines. Further - the user who moved this article into the main space (Pidzz) was the same user to do it multiple times as above and said user should be warned about that. Recommend deletion for lack of notability in these circumstances. Addicted4517 (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. 40 sources are Cagematch, which don't show notability. Other sources are unreliable or primary sources. No notable promotion --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 07:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: "Other sources are unreliable or primary sources" is false. I can see reliable independent coverage from Triple M, Sydney Morning Herald, and Timeout magazine. All established sources. Jack4576 (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: notability demonstrated by coverage from Triple M, Sydney Morning Herald, and Timeout (all linked within article already prior to this AfD). Article nevertheless needs NPOV work. Jack4576 (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Timeout is a promotional article demonstrated at the end with advertising multiple promotions. It is therefore not independent of the subject. The other two do not cover PWA Black Label any more than in a trivial manner, concentrating more on wrestlers in each (Jack Bonza and Robbie Eagles in SMH and Bonza in Triple M). This does not amount to the required substantial independent coverage required to pass the notability tests. Addicted4517 (talk) 02:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Thoroughly unimpressed by the state of this article. Notability is not established by coverage, so it fails GNG and should be deleted. The article would be a few short sentences if we wrote based on what RS have to say about it, the lengthy title histories are clearly not policy compliant.LM2000 (talk) 10:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An actual examination of the sources reveal that they're trivial coverage, and certainly nowhere near SIGCOV's requirements. Ravenswing 01:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – every source in that article is less than impressive, and most are trivial and lack SIGCOV. Nythar (💬-🍀) 10:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

White Box Requiem[edit]

White Box Requiem (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)

Insignificant album. JJLiu112 (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • No SIGCOV about the subject - the album >> 1.  Breihan, Tom (December 10, 2009). "Thurston Moore to Play With Jandek". Pitchfork.
  • Promotional, No SIGCOV about the subject - the album >> 2. ^ "Jandek: About Jandek". Tisue.net. Retrieved 12 May 2021.
  • AllMusic bio of artist, no SIGCOV about subject >> 3. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h "Jandek Biography, Songs, & Albums". AllMusic.
  • Discography >> 4. ^ Tisue, Seth. "Jandek: Discography". tisue.net. Retrieved September 23, 2016.
  • Promotional, No SIGCOV about the subject - the album >> 5. ^ "LCD 22 - Jandek - The Original Disconnect". WFMU. Retrieved September 23, 2016.
  • Intervew, not IS >> 6. ^ Jump up to:a b Jandek interview in 1985 on YouTube
  • Promotional, No SIGCOV about the subject - the album >> 7. ^ the big question
  • No SIGCOV about the subject - the album >> 8. ^ "Good Luck Finding Jandek's Record Store Day-Exclusive Vinyl Box Set". SPIN. March 15, 2013.
  • Fails IS, no SIGCOV about the subject - the album >> 9. ^ August 1999 0, Katy Vine (August 1, 1999). "Jandek and Me". Texas Monthly.
  • No SIGCOV about the subject - the album >> 10. ^ Jandek pitchfork
BEFORE showed database style pages and promo, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  01:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not all of the Jandek albums are individually notable, but this one is. I've expanded the article and added sources (completely different from those listed above). Am hoping to circle back this weekend to add at least one more source and list which two or three are the strongest. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please assess this article after changes since it was nominated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 American Idol (season 2). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Julia DeMato[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Julia DeMato (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)

Absolutely fails WP:NSINGER. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Television, and Connecticut. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, this is the fourth nomination, all of which have been keep. However, this page does not get many page hits, Google Trends shows barely any searches for her. Sources for her are very trivial, I don't think feeding the homeless, hosting a local event at a pub, and going to drug rehab over fifteen years ago is very notable. Although she has placed in the top twelve in a reality television show, she has not had a notable music career, covering only two songs and recording one song of a nonnotable music company. The only criterion I could see her keeping is criterion four, and upon searching, the tour she went also does not seem notable. I would support redirecting to the American Idol season that she was on. Heart (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to American Idol (season 2). The previous nominations had hilariously bad arguments, such as "the article gets 1,000 views a month!" and "the second season of American Idol was its breakthrough season!" It is almost hilariously bad that in the past 3 AfDs not a single person identified a single instance of significant coverage of this person. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to American Idol (season 2) per above. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 14:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 43. ✗plicit 03:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Gabler[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mike Gabler (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 first nomination made at time of the article's initial development was closed as "kept", but I have some concerns about the arguments made. Most of the "keep" votes were based on assumption that winning Survivor just once is an automatic pass of notability. Those such arguments were made in AFD nominations on a few or several other articles about Survivor winners, like Natalie White and Bob Crowley, yet those AFD discussions resulted in "redirected to [X]". Furthermore, the closure was done by a non-admin who has edited for a few years. I contacted that closer, but no response yet to this date.

Well, one of "keep" voters cited significant coverage. However, I'm unconvinced that it (and WP:GNG) can override the longstanding WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E, either of which may apply to this article. This person became notable solely for winning Survivor 43 (and donating all his winnings to charity), and I don't see one reliable source verifying his notability as a heart valve specialist or for anything else also as significant as the Survivor 43 win. In other words, consensus can change, and the page must be redirected to Survivor 43. George Ho (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Frankly, I think some of the keep votes in the first nomination were based on WP:ILIKEIT rather than actual notability arguments; examples being an editor saying that "historical precedent in regards to Survivor and media coverage says otherwise" in response to a relist noting that winning Survivor doesn't mean notability and an editor with just 22 edits and no other edits to AfD voting keep. I don't think AfD nominations should be closed unless it is WP:SNOW, withdrawn, or a nomination with invalid reasoning, which wasn't present. The article fails WP:BLP1E and the sources are either too short or contain too much interview to qualify for WP:SIGCOV in my opinion. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 09:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:ONEEVENT. The only sourcing is in the lead. The completely unsourced body of the article is not encyclopedic at all. It reads like a play-by-play narrative of the event. — Maile (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination doesn't looks like an encyclopedia article
Shaikha Habiba (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 03:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Falguni Shane Peacock[edit]

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

Promotional articles masquerading as articles, although listing a large number of sources, need to be checked individually for popularity or for self-promotion. ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 00:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_May_13&oldid=1157273423"