Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 14	May 16 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2017 CONIFA European Football Cup squads[edit]

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

List that doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:LISTN as I can't find any independent sources covering this. The tournament itself is notable but that doesn't automatically mean that the squad list is notable. I'm not even convinced that this meets WP:V, a Wikipedia policy. I found RSSSF but this lists the match day squads rather than the full squads of players called up for the actual tournament. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Football, Cyprus, Georgia (country), and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:07, 9 May 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 23:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails WP:GNG. Could not find any sources that would help the page to pass GNG. Fats40boy11 (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:09, 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. ✗plicit 23:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feature Story News[edit]

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

Only cited primary sources, marked multiple issues for years without improvement. The only coverage of the subject I can found was listing and short descriptions, does not seem to pass WP:GNG Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and United States of America. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:33, 8 May 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 23:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't find any options for this article to remain either.Rodgers V (talk) 12:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:27, 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 redirect‎ to Half Japanese. ✗plicit 01:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Willett[edit]

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

Only WP:ROUTINE coverage, not notable as an individual performer. PROD was contested in 2013, allegedly by the subject of the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Half Japanese. Lacks independent coverage to justify keeping the article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested is reasonable, as would be a selective merge ("smerge"). Bearian (talk) 15:10, 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 23:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Rissling[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD, but as I noted then, he fails Fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY Kaiser matias (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not finding evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another of the many hundreds of cases of WP:CREATEDBYDOLOVIS that we're likely going to need to be cleaning up yet another decade from now. Obvious failure of all pertinent notability criteria. Ravenswing 22:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to justify the presence of this article on Wikipedia. It fails WP:GNG Rodgers V (talk) 12:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: This fails WP:GNG. Agreed with all editors involved. CastJared (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't find any evidence of notability, thus failing GNG. // 🌶️Jala peño🌶️ Don't click this link! 09:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:28, 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 redirect‎ to A Canticle for Leibowitz. ✗plicit 23:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Leibowitz[edit]

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

Completely unsourced page of a character with questionable notability. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Canticle for Leibowitz, not notable outside of the novel. Oaktree b (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Canticle for Leibowitz. Agree with above. --Bduke (talk) 08:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per others as WP:ATD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:29, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Optimus Clix[edit]

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

Clearly does not meet WP:GNG. No sources found on Google, or WP-refs. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and Portugal. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the very reasonable nomination, although I would not oppose a redirect to Optimus_Comunicações as a search term. Bearian (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:29, 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 keep‎. ✗plicit 23:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rams–Vikings rivalry[edit]

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

Outside of the 1970s, very little actually links the Rams and Vikings as rivals in the present day, I have been a devout Rams fan for multiple decades and we have harbored no such hatred towards Minnesota. PontiacAurora (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football, California, and Minnesota. Shellwood (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability is not WP:NOTTEMPORARY. If the rivalry was notable in the 1970s, then it qualifies for an article. Alvaldi (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for the reasons Alvaldi gives, and really per nom. As the nom acknowledges, this was a notable rivalry in the 1970s and regardless of what happened since then notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Rlendog (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above. A major rivalry in its day and received WP:SIGCOV from top authorities on NFL coverage, such as CBS and NBC. Today's Rams-Vikings series is not to the level it was in the 1970s, but notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY Frank Anchor 14:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the article, I believe, was submitted due to the one's not-awareness of WP:NOTTEMPORARY I believe it can be left untouched. Rodgers V (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:NOTTEMPORARY as Alvaldi and others point out. Nom admits that the subject was notable in the past. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:GNG and WP:NTEMP, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:49, 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 keep‎. ✗plicit 23:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

49ers–Raiders rivalry[edit]

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

Minimal resources for a concurrent rivalry, poor citations, and a lack of relevance particularly as the 49ers and Raiders often saw success at fluctuating times of their respective histories, the only notable moment of animosity came during several preseason and regular season brawls between fans, very little actually links the two teams to build animosity towards one another, especially in the present times. The reference page only lists one outdated article from Bleacher Report declaring the two teams as rivals, most of the articles supporting animosity between the two just revolve around the fan misconduct and the two teams cancelling preseason games. PontiacAurora (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rivalry in professional sports is more a fan phenomenon than one that involves the players, but it's worldwide. Consider the reputation that English football hooligans have, for example. A rivalry between groups of fans is still a rivalry, and reports of fan misconduct are a demonstration of the rivalry's notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The rivalry is likely to fade somewhat with the Raiders now across a state line, but N doesn't expire just because a natural inter-city rivalry does. Nate • (chatter) 03:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and United States of America. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG with significant coverage that speaks of the rivalry such as [1][2][3]. Alvaldi (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I usually dislike rivalry articles for teams that are not in the same division. With that said, I do believe that this is a demonstrated and recognized rivalry, and that notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per GNG and a lack of valid deletion rationale. Rlendog (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Nevada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just as in the case of Rams–Vikings rivalry AfD vote, I believe that this article deserves to stay due to its obvious notability. I agree with the arguments on that above and because of that won't reiterate those twice.Rodgers V (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per what looks like a misunderstanding or unawareness from the nominator of WP:NOTTEMPORARY. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 08:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above and WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Frank Anchor 15:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:GNG and WP:NTEMP, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above, it passes WP:GNG and has significant coverage. As per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, a subject/topic etc does not need to have ongoing coverage once it has had significant coverage, which applies to this rivalry. Fats40boy11 (talk) 16:35, 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 keep‎ on account of the argument that the subject meets GNG. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quigley (musician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSINGER; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Television. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly fails NSINGER, but I think the article does meet the general notability guidelines – there have been plenty of articles about her since her time on American Idol. Most of the articles are about her status as an influencer, not as a singer. Whatever we think of that as an occupation, RS seem to consider her notable enough to report on her now and then. --Tserton (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Skynxnex (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tserton. pburka (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG based on cited sources. ~Kvng (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A few years ago, fans like me were trying to create articles for the runners up ("the best of the rest"), but the consensus has changed to include only the winners, or at most the 2nd or 3rd place, of major reality shows. See the recent discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Melissa_Sgambelluri. In this case, there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources to keep a BLP under even general notability guidelines, much less for a singer. Bearian (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: unless I'm missing something, we've already got enough sources in the article to pass GNG. I understand the AfD consensus linked by User:Bearian to mean that a person is not notable solely for being a runner-up on a major show: that's separate from whether they've received WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources to pass GNG. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:52, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Siboney (rum)[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable product/organization. I tagged it back in August for notability and citations, and we really have nothing. Google turns up nothing but listings. Valereee (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jamaica-related deletion discussions. Valereee (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Products. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dominican Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from the stores that sell this product, I couldn't find anything to establish its notability.--Bexaendos (talk) 19:32, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Tarimo[edit]

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

No coverage at all in reliable sources, subject has not won or participated in any major beauty pageant Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 18:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Tanzania. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of the cited sources are either passing mentions or blog posts. There does not seem to be any significant coverage of the subject, even in Swahili sources. With being just a regional beauty champion, the subject does not seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable beauty contestant, with no significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:02, 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. Frankly, there is no consensus as to whether or not there is independent, sustained, reliable coverage. Certainly there are strongly held opinions on each side... 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Greenhill[edit]

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

The article fails to meet the standards of WP:GNG. 1keyhole (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC article is a routine transfer report with no in-depth coverage of Greenhill. I'm having trouble accessing the pay-walled article from The Courier. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Courier article confirms his involvement in the catering firm but the only reference to football is tangential and of no value establishing notability in that regard: "They have now secured partnerships with Gym64 in Kirkcaldy, Raw Pressed in St Andrews, East Fife Football Club and some local gyms in Leven." Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Eastmain. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources added are significant coverage. Giant Snowman 20:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've started to update the article, I've added a number of references, @GiantSnowman: If you're interested, I actually think the game, arrest and trail, built with the other stuff is enough to pass basic GNG. Regards. Govvy (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough for me, yet. Remember, this person is supposed to be notable for being a footballer. The sources have scant information about his career. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, not enough, it's a bit BLP1E. Giant Snowman 19:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: How can it be one event? He got sent off in one event, won a league in another event and from a twitter post get suspended for 16 matches in another event! :/ Govvy (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's tabloid nonsense and you know it. Giant Snowman 20:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG with a lack of significant coverage about him. Being charged with an assault that was later dropped doesn't mean a pass of GNG either. Dougal18 (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer, WP:BASIC tells us that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. I believe I have done that with the amount of sources I've added since this AfD has been nominated. This footballer has been involved in multiple incidents in his career, up's and downs. I feel what I have added shows that. Govvy (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's pretty meagre stuff. It isn't tenable that a less-than-notable footballing career, entirely in the lower leagues, save half a match, is regarded as amounting to notability if scraped together with a few reports of petty thuggery and involvement in a small business, even if expanded by a side role in gossip about a micro-celeb who isn't themself deemed worthy of an article of their own. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

reply @Mutt Lunker: What are your thoughts on what WP:BASIC should be? And ye, I didn't see how to use that gossip bit! That's why I dumped it in ref-ideas on talk page. But overall, I found rather a few hits and some goods ones on his sending off's. Tell me, don't you feel I've built a decent picture there? Govvy (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decent picture or not, it's not a notable one. WP:BASIC is not an indication that weight of numbers of sources mentioning the subject is a substitute for the significance, or lack thereof. For instance, if there are multiple court reports in the press for drink driving offences by the dame in the panto at the Adam Smith Theatre, that does not establish their notability as an actor, or offender. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Na, you totally lost me there, "substitute for the significance, or lack thereof."? I did not understand this statement. Govvy (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BASIC does not mean that having lots of sources, in itself, establishes notability. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think you have enough sources for notability in Scottish football. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The reporting on his 2008 and 2014 incidents are routine primary news pieces, not evidence of sustained secondary coverage. An article based on these sources would violate BLP/NPOV. Nothing here approaches SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @JoelleJay: Why do footballers get continued coverage, because they are sports people. This player has played what you call top level football in Scotland, covered a fair bit by different sources over a period of time. There is more on the web to find. I honestly feel you no longer understand the term basic coverage. You don't need SIGCOV for BASIC. Basic is the concept where you are not using in-depth coverage for the fact there is enough coverage among the spread of sources provided. Often I've noticed people go and run an in-depth analysis on each source and completely forgetting to count all the sources together. You can take all sources together, the one liners, the paragraphs from others, the whole article from another. Not one delete vote is doing that, there-for there is a complete dilution of the understanding of what constitutes BASIC. Govvy (talk) 08:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NBASIC doesn't override NOT, which excludes routine news events such as crime reports and match recaps from contributing to notability. The subject also still needs the SIGCOV source per SPORTSBASIC. If you have to cobble together a bunch of one-liners to generate a biography, especially for a subject in the internet era, you're doing something wrong. JoelleJay (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Far as I am concerned, I don't think you understand what BASIC notability is. Govvy (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If your idea of BASIC is just add all the sources together, take the prose from each citation, combine it into one word document and see how much prose is there, then every single person in my family would have 20+ sentences of prose from secondary independent RS spread across 2+ sources and covering large segments of our lives, merely because we've won some regional awards and played sports. One of my classmates committed felonies several years apart that each received continuing coverage of his trials in two different cities -- I guess that qualifies him too. JoelleJay (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you an example of collected sources and how to view them in a different perspective and you throw that out as meaningless? The exact same process happens at every other article from David Beckham to Mahatma Gandhi, people collect sources and build an article. I don't see how your delete argument is an constructive argument. If anything, there is this bias nature about it. I am frankly bemused by you and others like you. Govvy (talk) 09:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Game report	1. "Dunfermline 1-1 Dundee Utd". BBC Sport. 14 April 2004. Retrieved 16 May 2023.
Routine sports news about a signing	2. ^ "Dalziel makes McMullan his first signing at Raith Rovers". The Herald. Scotland. 8 January 2005. Retrieved 16 May 2023.
Game report	3. ^ "Berwick Rangers 0-3 Dumbarton". BBC Sport. 15 January 2005. Retrieved 16 May 2023.
Game report	4. ^ "Stenhousemuir 2-3 Berwick Rangers". BBC Sport. 30 December 2006. Retrieved 16 May 2023.
Game report	5. ^ Jump up to:a b "Berwick Rangers 1-0 Arbroath". BBC Sport. 21 April 2007. Retrieved 16 May 2023.
Routine sports news about a signing bonus	6. ^ "Triple signing boost for Berwick". BBC Sport. 15 May 2007. Retrieved 15 May 2023.
Routine sports news about a signing	7. ^ "East Fife sign Greenhill and Fox". BBC Sport. 20 August 2007. Retrieved 16 May 2023.
Game report	8. ^ "East Fife 3 - 1 Stranraer". The Herald. Scotland. 27 August 2007. Retrieved 17 May 2023.
Game report	9. ^ "Dumbarton 5-2 Berwick". Daily Record. 2 November 2008. Retrieved 16 May 2023.
GiantSnowman had it right, this is tabloid coverage of bad behavior, not SIGCOV	10. ^ Mathieson, Jack (3 November 2008). "Exclusive: Cops charge Berwick Rangers footballer over 'push' on referee". Daily Record. Retrieved 16 May 2023.
See above	11. ^ Mathieson, Jack (26 December 2008). "Red card ref attacker has case thrown out of court". Daily Record. Retrieved 16 May 2023.
See above	12. ^ "Footballer fined for 'you're dead, referee' tweet". The Scotsman. 21 January 2014. Retrieved 16 May 2023.
See above	13. ^ "Footballer fined for Twitter threats". The Courier & Advertiser. 21 January 2014. Retrieved 16 May 2023 – via pressreader.
About a food catering business subject is involved in, no SIGCOV about subject.	14. ^ Okhai, Mariam (18 July 2022). "Fife entrepreneurs serve up 3,000 dishes a week with Super Lean meal prep business". The Courier. Archived from the original on 15 May 2023. Retrieved 15 May 2023.

I think the closest this comes to SIGCOV are the 2Es the subject was involved in and these were about minor incidents (both resulted in a league fine and missed games, one was thrown out of court), not something that someone becomes notable for. Corret me if I'm wrong, but fines and game suspensions are reasonably common? (they are in the United States, I'm assuming it is the same in Europe). // Timothy :: talk 00:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @TimothyBlue: Per quota to games played, footballers that play football, red cards are uncommon, player fines are rare and a 16-match ban is extremely rare. That event holds SIGCOV on it's own. There were a few other sources for that I didn't add. I am not sure about your breakdown here, I have added the sources per fact, to cover that fact. So other than your dream for complete in-depth coverage on each source?! :/ Really... just add all the sources together, take the prose from each citation, combine it into one word document and see how much prose is there. And then tell me, does that one document have in-depth coverage. Govvy (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of the references are a bit tabloidy - but wait, there's more. This Australian article about the Big Brother Incident - which no one seems to have mentioned yet. There's enough here for GNG, even without the tabloid stuff. Nfitz (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incident mentioned, with agreement as to its triviality. I can't access your article link I'm afraid, getting "A System Problem has Occurred To begin a new session, please login again.". Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so it has been mentioned - subtlty. I've fixed the link. Nfitz (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear fail of GNG, as demonstrated by source evaluation above. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per source analysis above. There is no significant coverage beyond a few tabloid-style entries. Jogurney (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Timothy's source evaluation. Most are routine coverage. SWinxy (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly passes GNG. Source table above is biased, and tabloid coverage can be significant IMO.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid [...] The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism. JoelleJay (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biased? what? SWinxy (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Scotsman is a tabloid now? (well, I guess most of them are - even The Times - but is the paper size they print on relevant? The table is biased, simply dismissing this good Scotsman source as a "Tabloid" Nfitz (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ye, it's really bizarre, delete voting, disregarding BBC, The Scotsman and The Courier & Advertiser! :/ Govvy (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've gone ahead and evaluated the sources again. For future-proofing, I am referring to this revision.


Source(s)	Evaluation	Policy or Comment
1-6	not SIGCOV	Passing mentions only.
7	not SIGCOV	Per WP:SPORTCRIT, mentions in databases with "low, generic standards of inclusion" do not establish notability. these BBC SPORT "reports" on games and transfers have almost no standard of inclusion, they report on practically all matches and transfers.
8	not SIGCOV	Passing mention only.
9	not SIGCOV	Again, this is a report on a match from a source that generates these reports indiscriminately.
10	Borderline	This coverage of an event that is specific to Greenhill constitutes significant coverage. The low reliability of the source poses an issue, especially since it's an allegation of a crime relating to a WP:BLP. To me, it's not clear that the Daily Record is sufficiently reliable to be used as the source for such an allegation.
11	Borderline	Additional coverage of the alleged "shove" again constitutes SIGCOV, but the issue of low source liability persists.
12	Good	Low circulation <10,000 of the source newspaper (The Scotsman) is not optimal, but this still contributes to notability. Allegation of a crime / serious misconduct (causing fear and alarm) needs to be well-supported, see below.
13	Good	Additional reporting on the same incident by a different source means this incident can likely be included in an article.
14	not SIGCOV	I cannot access this article due to a paywall, but going off of Robby.is.on's summary, this is not significant coverage of the individual.

There is significant coverage of Greenhill in 4 references coming from 3 different sources. One of them has limited reliability, but two of them (coincidentally reporting on the same incident) appear reliable. I think this collection of reporting quite clearly meets the threshold for notability. As I mention above, I don't think the coverage in BBC SPORT is significant enough to contribute to notability, but of course it can be used to verify individual claims. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your analysis is thoughtful, however I think it's important to also consider SUSTAINED and NOTNEWS. The incident reported in sources 12 and 13 would certainly constitute a "single event", and if an article was to be written from its coverage (and we should be basing the article on the sources that provide SIGCOV) it would be emphasizing a relatively minor fining incident that received some coverage in one news cycle in a couple small Scottish newspapers... JoelleJay (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is an issue. WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E provide some guidance, but it's certainly a tricky situation. Here are some factors going into my interpretation:

According to BIO1E, "the general rule is to cover the event, not the person." However, in my opinion, it would be absurd to have an article entitled "Greenhill Shove of Referee" or "Greenhill Tweet Scandal" as opposed to just an article on Greenhill himself. If Greenhill is notable, he is notable as a footballer, not as a referee-shover or tweeter. The events are certainly less notable than the individual. Nowadays, nobody cares about death threats on Twitter; unfortunately, they are nothing out of the ordinary. The only reason this was reported on at all was who was making the threat. If this event is notable, it is notable in virtue of its association to Greenhill, not on its own.

The one-event-rule in WP:SUSTAINED is qualified by this condition: "if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event [...]". A part of me wants to say that the shoving incident and the twitter incident were distinct events, but that feels like rule-lawyering. So instead, I will point out that he has received SIGCOV as a footballer (within the context of his games), even if not for his football abilities in the strict sense. All the coverage exists within the context of him being a professional footballer, and he will most likely continue to be just that for a while. Thus, at least in my mind, he is notable as a footballer, even if not for being a particularly outstanding one at his craft.

Govvy said he plays at the "top level" of Scottish football. I don't know enough about Scottish football to evaluate that claim, but taking it to be true, here's another thought: A player who plays a country's most popular sport at the national level and has received coverage beyond that mere fact is probably notable.

For my conclusion, I will (for the first time) invoke WP:IAR, relying on WP:COMMONSENSE for policy interpretation. To me, and this is distinctly a matter of opinion, the volume of coverage is sufficient to show that there is real value in having an article about this person. In the end, the notability criteria exist to ensure that articles provide some value to readers. It's not unusual for biographies to land on this razor edge of just barely meeting the technical notability criteria set out in policies and guidelines. Of course we can count sources and argue endlessly about the precise threshold of source reliability or the duration of "sustained" reporting required to establish notability, but it is more practical to ask: "Does this article make Wikipedia better, does it provide readers with value to have it here?" and "Is that value outweighed by the confusion or ambiguity the article could create?" And to me, in this case, the answers are Yes and No, respectively. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The problem is that this article is structured on him being a footballer. Meanwhile, the sources certifying notability are for other miscellaneous events, for which the coverage, quite frankly, is not in-depth nor significant. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is borderline, and good faith attempts have been made to improve the article, but the material here does not meet my bar for SIGCOV once routine coverage has been accounted for. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep I don't buy sources don't count because their coverage is about something negative. Sources aren't great, but enough to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 00:48, 30 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 a consensus to delete despite 2 keep !votes. One !vote to keep was based on underrepresentation of the Rockies but, as Frank Anchor noted, that is not a policy-based rationale. The other keep !vote posited 2 articles purporting to support the subject, but as Frank Anchor noted, one is a blog so would not count toward GNG under our guidelines, and even if the other fully conforms with GNG, GNG requires multiple independent reliable sources. So there are no keep !votes supported by Wikipedia guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diamondbacks–Rockies rivalry[edit]

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

Article describes a non-existent rivalry between two teams that just happen to compete in the same division. This topic does not pass GNG based on the below source analysis table. Article reads as WP:FANCRUFT and the only sources available on a WP:BEFORE search are routine mentions or fan blogs. Frank Anchor 16:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frank might I ask the process to nominate articles for deletion? I know of several who are candidates PontiacAurora (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Nominating article(s) for deletion. Frank Anchor 21:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis by User:Frank Anchor

Source assessment by User:Frank Anchor
Source	Comments
ARI vs. COL	WP:ROUTINE list of head-to-head records N
Who Should Colorado Sports Fans Call a Rival?	Refers to the D-Backs/Rockies series as a "disagreement" and says series "could become" a rivalry but does not have the history of other rivalries for Denver-based team. This article was posted in 2008 and there is no "follow-up" suggesting a rivalry between the two teams. N
"Rocktober" When the Rockies accomplished the impossible in 2007	WP:LOCAL coverage (though not directly affiliated with either team). Article summarizes the Rockies' 2007 playoff run that included a series against the D-Backs. It does not describe the two teams as being "rivals." N
Knudson: Rockies-Diamondbacks have quiet rivalry going	Describes teams as "quiet rivals" or there possibly being a rivalry. Not enough for SIGCOV establishing the two teams as rivals. N
NL West’s best, worst teams meet as D-backs seek sweep of Rockies	Routine game summary. Only uses the term "rival" once as a routine mention that the teams are from the same division. N
Rockies host Arizona Diamondbacks, look to break home losing streak	Routine game summary. Does not describe teams as "rivals" N
Arizona Diamondbacks vs. Colorado Rockies Betting News	Individual game betting lines N
Arizona Diamondbacks vs. Colorado Rockies	Article describes the teams as "rivals" several times, but fails to describe any animosity between the two teams while only making routine statements about head-to-head performance. ?
Rockies Diamondbacks rivalry on deck	Local coverage (though unaffiliated with either team), describes the potential of a rivalry (and this article is from 2007, which gives plenty of time for a rivalry to have developed but it never did). N
2007 NLCS just start of D-Backs Rockies rivalry	Local coverage (though unaffiliated with either team), describes the potential of a rivalry (and this article is from 2007, which gives plenty of time for a rivalry to have developed but it never did). N
Rockies Confident Jon Gray vs Diamondbacks	Local coverage (though unaffiliated with either team), routine pregame coverage that does not describe teams as "rivals" N
Rockies against D-Backs Zack Greinke	Local coverage (though unaffiliated with either team), routine pregame coverage that does not describe teams as "rivals" N
Twitter	Non-independent (from the D-Backs twitter page) and only references Phoenix and Denver's basketball teams facing off in a playoff series N
2007 NLCS Game 1	Routine box score N
2007 NLCS Game 2	Routine box score N
2007 NLCS Game 3	Routine box score N
NLCS Game 4	Routine box score N

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Frank Anchor 16:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Frank Anchor 16:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sources demonstrate that the Rockies and Diamondbacks play against each other, not that their matchups comprise a "rivalry". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of the only sources mentioning the rivalry is a tweet, not exactly the most reliable, same with the others (either unreliable or mention it in passing). Not enough to justify a full article. ULPS (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty much the exact same case as the recently deleted AstrosBraves rivalry article. I see nothing here indicating a rivalry outside of the teams playing each other, which does not a rivalry make. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I feel like the Rockies are far too under-represented across wikipedia, or in the baseball archives as a whole, there's enough to warrant a substantial existence of a lower-key divisional rivalry, particularly during the 2000s and the 2017 NLWC. PontiacAurora (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A user’s claims of a team being underrepresented are not grounds for keeping an article that fails GNG. Also, any claims of a “lower-key divisional rivalry” are not supported by references. Lots of pairs of teams go through stretches in which both are simultaneously playoff contenders for a few years and possibly meet ina playoff series. That however does not establish a rivalry. Frank Anchor 21:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per convincing nomination and SA table. WP:NOTEVERYTHING. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 08:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's enough evidence to suggest that the Arizona Diamondbacks & Colorado Rockies should be considered as divisional rivals. I have multiple non primary sources to suggest this is a rivalry, per SBNation. & DenverPost.com. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 06:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The SB nation source is a fan blog which explains that the two teams have been simultaneously competitive for a brief stretch in the late 2010s. It includes language of "starting to grow a rivalry" and that maybe this series "could be up there with that of the Dodgers and Giants or the Red Sox and Yankees" (two well-known MLB rivalries). But it does not establish a rivalry is present (and there wasno follow-up from that continuing coverage of a rivalry)

. The Denver Post source is routine coverage of a single game which happens the term "rivalry" in the title and describes the teams as "geographic rivals" in the prose, but does nothing to describe the teams as "rivals" in a way that could not be used for any set of two teams

. Certainly not enough here to establish the existence of a rivalry by GNG-standards. Frank Anchor 12:13, 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 23:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Staniec[edit]

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

non-notable artist page created from a single-purpose account and never improved with a single reference since ~T P W 15:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ~T P W 15:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Illinois. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the linked sources are self-published blogs (and no longer online). He doesn't appear to meet WP:NAUTHOR, but general notability is more borderline. The best sources I found were a profile in The Orange County Register ([4]) and an article in the LA Times about his summer writing program ([5]). He's also been quoted in several places as the director of various cultural centers in the OC area, though none of the coverage seems to indicate notability. Overall he seems to fall short of GNG. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 17:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage is local. Fails WP:GNG. The article has been PRODed multiple times, but it looks like it was never brought to AFD for discussion. Un-referenced exact birth date suggests WP:CIO. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:28, 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 keep‎. ✗plicit 23:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Elements of Moral Philosophy[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG. No inline sources and a quick online search found no significant coverage. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:TEXTBOOKS. This book is the most popular philosophy textbook according to open syllabus, it clearly meets the requirement of "whether it is, or has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions" - car chasm (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (edit conflict) I have found the following sources which are sufficient for GNG: [6], [7], [8]. I would also note that this review of another of Rachels's book begins with: James Rachels's The Elements of Moral Philosophy is one of the most popular philosophy textbooks ever written. At one point nearly a third of all ethics classes in the United States were using this book. WJ94 (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviews in Teaching Philosophy (1993)[9], (2000)[10]; review in Personnel Review (1993)[11]; obituary of author noting its bestseller status[12], a "popular textbook" that "contains one of the best-known critiques of moral relativism"[13], a "widely used textbook"[14], a "famous textbook" [15]. Jahaza (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion. Clearly fulfills WP:TEXTBOOKS and reliable sources exist. ULPS (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Andre🚐 01:33, 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. The nominator's arguments have sufficiently answered those !voting keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gol Transportes Aéreos destinations[edit]

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

This is an exhaustive listing of all of the services of a commercial enterprise and as such fails WP:NOT, particularly WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Also fails the 2018 RFC on whether these articles were appropriate content for Wikipedia. EDIT: A subsequent AN discussion concluded that these articles should be AFD'd in an orderly manner with a link to the original RFC discussion and that it should be taken into account in any close.

Even if the above-described issues were overcome somehow (and I don't think they can be) this is still an article falling within the remit of WP:CORP since it is entirely about a commercial enterprise. However, the sources in the article are:

Gol's own website. Not independent.
Aeroin.net, which is a borderline blog (see their about page) and at absolute best still fails WP:AUD as it's specialist media.
Voepass's website. Not independent.
Panrotas.com, which lacks any information that would allow you to assess their reliability (see their blank "about" page) and appears to be a blog. Even if it weren't, it still fails WP:AUD.
aeronauticapy.com, which appears to be another potential blog/specialist media, especially as their "about" page says they use amateur authors.

My WP:BEFORE search found nothing that would fix this, just WP:RUNOFTHEMILL press-releases and announcements about services opening/closing. Notably numerous flights listed here are not even provided by this airline. FOARP (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Lists, and Brazil. FOARP (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete (but bundle henceforth): I fail to see why this particular airline destination list (or the other two listed in RfD today) is any more or less notable and encyclopedic than any of the numerous other airline destination lists that still exist despite that 2018 RfC, including many for defunct airlines. If the intention is really to delete all airline destination lists, then let's do it in a single RfD. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. FOARP (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per FOARP, and especially per the RfC outcome. --Tserton (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2023

(UTC)

Keep: whereas Gol and Voepass websites are not independent, Panrotas, Aeroin, and Aeronauticapy are. They are not blogs but airline news websites, widely used for indepndent airline news in Brazil and in Paraguay. Their information is more precise and in depth if compared with mainstream media when dealing with airline related subjects. There has been major changes in Gol services due to the end of the operation agreeement with Voepass. Changes will be updated as soon as possible. (Brunoptsem (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC))[reply]

There are significant reasons to doubt whether these are reliable sources which I mention in the nomination and which you have not rebutted, but even if they are reliable and independent, how do these sites pass WP:CORP? Additionally, you have not mentioned the WP:NOT issues with this article which by themselves are sufficient grounds for deletion - just how exactly is an exhaustive listing of all products/services of a commercial enterprise at a particular date encyclopaedic content? What about the 2018 RFC? FOARP (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question The nominator's statement (and the rebuttal above) says that the article (and the other airline destinations articles they have nominated) should be deleted because they violate WP:NOT, WP:NOTTRAVEL, and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Since NOTTRAVEL and NOTCATALOGUE are subsets of NOT, is the nominator saying that a different section of that policy applies? The way that item #2 (Travel guides) of the "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal" section of NOT seems to be a stretch that a list of destinations is being used as a travel guide, since flight numbers, schedules, fares, or booking information is not being included. And I really don't know which part of NOTCATALOG is being applied here. Can this be clarified? RecycledPixels (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I think all these references to WP:NOT miss the point. There's an established consensus (based on the RfC on this precise topic) that Wikipedia shouldn't have articles that only list airline destinations. As with anything on Wikipedia, there can be exceptions, but then the burden is on those wanting to keep a given airline destinations list to argue why we should disregard the consensus in this case – and not on those proposing its deletion. (Or try to change the consensus, which would likely involve another RfC.) Tserton (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen the other 2018 RFC that was launched in the immediate aftermath that overwhelmingly concluded that WP:NOTDIR (another synonym for WP:NOTCATALOG) should not include a statement that lists of transportation service destinations are outside the scope of Wikipedia? A critical reading of that second RFC could raise questions about how accurate the finding that the first RFC established that there is a clear consensus to remove all these articles. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That motion failed on the specific (lack of) any wording that was provided for the amendment. The close did not note any contradiction of the original RFC (nor did the AN discussion). The discussion focused mainly on lists of railway stations, which is hardly the same as a list of services provided by a single company. FOARP (talk) 06:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Neither the purpose nor the outcome of the discussion was to reconsider the freshly established consensus. The proposal was simply to elevate the consensus into codified policy, and that's what was rejected. But that doesn't invalidate the RfC, nor does a (necessarily subjective) critical reading of it. Tserton (talk) 06:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RecycledPixels, thanks for your questions. WP:NOTTRAVEL applies because this is essentially a travel guide (it shows where you can travel with this company). WP:NOTCATALOGUE applies particularly because this is a listing of "...products and services..." (i.e., a business directory). These are just two of the WP:NOT headings that this article falls under - there are others (e.g., simple listings without contextual information, advertising). As Tserton pointed out, there is an RFC on this exact topic, the consensus of which remains standing (the only addition to which from a later AN discussion is that deletion of these articles has to be done in orderly fashion via AFD), that this kind of article is not appropriate content for Wikipedia. FOARP (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So if I read this article and discover that Gol Transportes Aéreos flies to Buenos Aires and to Córdoba, Argentina, I can use that information to plan my trip? Of course not. NOTTRAVEL refers to trivial information like telephone numbers and street addresses of specific notable features, like how to get to the Eiffel Tower from the Louvre, or what the best hotel in the area is. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you mean you can't use the information on this page to plan a trip? Because I think you can - it tells you directly how to get from Buenos Aires to Cordoba: fly Gol Transportes Aéreos! I would also like to know what your thoughts are on the business directory/catalogue nature of this article, as WP:NOTTRAVEL was not the only WP:NOT failure of this article? FOARP (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2. Sorry to throw in more threads here, but I also have a question about the nomination statement that this stand-alone list needs to be able to survive WP:CORP. Wouldn't WP:NLIST (subsection of WP:N) be a more appropriate notability guideline, since these lists are spin-off articles about destinations of the airline, rather than about the company itself, which has already presumably established its notability? And NLIST would be an exceptionally low hurdle to cross, since it seems to only require "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." So reliable independent sources that list the destinations of any airlines seems to establish notability of "List of Destination of X Airlines" types of articles. Or maybe I'm getting that wrong. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RP, it is exactly because these are spin-offs of WP:CORP articles that WP:CORP should apply to them also. They are entirely about the activities of a business, so the same issues of self-promotion/run-of-the-mill coverage apply. This applies on top of, not instead of, WP:LISTN. The alternative would be allowing destination-lists that aren’t just not notable on their own grounds, but even lists for airlines that aren’t notable under WP:CORP, and even articles with no references at all beyond perhaps the website of the company.FOARP (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS - if there were any further doubt on WP:CORP applying here, the very first sentence of WP:CORP is "This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service (my emphasis). This page is manifestly dedicated solely to the air transport service provided by Gol Transportes Aéreos, a commercial organisation, and hence falls within the scope of WP:CORP. FOARP (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NCORP, WP:NOTTRAVEL, and WP:NOTDATABASE. We are here to provide encyclopedic coverage of this airline; this doesn't include an exhaustive list, that lacks explanations referenced to independent sources, of the destinations they serve. BilledMammal (talk) 07:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since there are simultanoeus RfDs involving different lists of airline destinations I propose to center the discussion in a single page.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. Nythar (💬-🍀) 23:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This kind of information belongs in an airline's website, not in Wikipedia. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:24, 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 delete‎. Black Kite (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eye, West Virginia[edit]

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

Unable to find on topo. Probably was a couple of buildings or a railroad siding. If someone in this discussion can find on topo, let me know. Source is not valid. Either way, not really notable at all. Cutlass ^Ciera 14:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cutlass ^Ciera 14:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and West Virginia. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This appears to be another case of what the USGS called a "locale." See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coal, West Virginia. A locale was a named place with permanent human-made buildings or structures, distinguished from a populated place. These entries have all disappeared from the GNIS database. No evidence that Eye, West Virginia was a settlement even from the USGS. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anything made by User:Vanished user 7b1215e7ef746ac20682e3dbe03f5b84 is inherently suspect and unreliable. He had an extensive history of bulk-creating articles from the GNIS with disregard to the places' legitimacy as actual communities or notability (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monkey Box, Florida, among many others). Reywas92^Talk 18:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: according to U.S. Appointments of Postmasters, 1832–1971, there was an Eye post office from September 11, 1889 to March 15, 1904, with postmaster David Amick. When it was discontinued (February 24, 1904) the mail was redirected to Snow Hill. I searched for an Eye on several old topographical maps in the neighborhood of Snow Hill (useful resource, the USGS map locator will list maps including or near any point you pin on a map, some around, or even before 1900, others mid-century, and up to the present), and did not find it. It should have been somewhere nearby, if the mail was redirected to Snow Hill; since it is not shown on any of the maps of this period, it must have been very ephemeral—perhaps just the name of the post office. Often post offices are named for the postmaster or a member of his family, but "Eye" doesn't sound like someone's name. So not much help here! P Aculeius (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. The fact that there might be sources that might indicate that there was a locale of that name at some point in history does not establish notability. Actualcpscm (talk) 08:44, 29 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 Procedural Keep‎. If the OP wants to restart an AfD for Meeras, that should be done separately. Black Kite (talk) 10:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arada (company)[edit]

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

DELETE - WP NCORP. After thorough analysis of the Meraas Wikipedia page, it is evident that the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Meraas, as a subject, does not have significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that are verifiable. The article currently lacks in-depth information and relies heavily on primary sources and promotional materials, which do not comply with Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view.

Furthermore, the references provided are sparse and do not adequately establish the subject's notability. The absence of multiple, independent, and reliable sources discussing Meraas makes it challenging to verify the information presented or to justify its existence as a standalone Wikipedia article. Lulakayd (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This company is not related to Meraas. The references are notable, as this developer is one of the biggest in the UAE, en par with Emaar and Damac, both of which have Wiki pages. Please clarify on why you think it is related to Meraas? OmarKattan (talk) 07:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the author was paid to write this article, from a local and regional standpoint, the company is notable as the largest property developer in the Northern Emirates, is owned by the Deputy Ruler of Sharjah as part of the complex business-political relationship in the country, and it's financial strategy has been reported in international and national media, as part of a blueprint and focus on islamic finance like Sukuk. It would be beneficial to add information in the article about the ownership and financial strategy that it is a selling point rather than list projects to avoid making it sound like an advertisement. ScholarofArabia (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: you haven't mentioned this in the nom; did you search for other sources including local sources? Jack4576 (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is this nomination for Arada (company) or for Meraas? This AfD is titled Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arada (company), but the text of the nomination is about Meraas. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. Nomination is terribly confusing, since nominator has not made it clear which article they're actually talking about. Without prejudice to renominating, if anyone wishes doing so. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would suggest closing the discussion here and migrating it over to Meraas, since that appears to be the intended target of the nominator. Actualcpscm (talk) 08:49, 29 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 23:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Flybe destinations (1979–2020)[edit]

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

Basically per WP:NOT, particularly WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Additionally per the 2018 RFC which was followed by AN discussion that concluded that these articles should be AFD'd in an orderly manner with a link to the original RFC discussion and that it should be taken into account in any close. This is simply an exhaustive listing of all services provided by a commercial enterprise, and not encyclopaedic content which is supposed to be a summary of what is said in secondary sources. It differs in no substantial regard to a complete listing of locations run by Burger King.

Even if the RFC were over-turned, and the WP:NOT issues removed somehow, the article would still need to pass WP:CORP (particularly WP:AUD), which would basically be impossible in this case. The article is supported only by Flybe's website, and a 404 page on the non-RS routesonline.com website. My WP:BEFORE search found nothing relevant. FOARP (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Lists, and United Kingdom. FOARP (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Friends, in the shadow of WP:NOT's stern decree, I sorrowfully support this deletion. Wikipedia, our digital sentinel, guards notable facts, not trifles. Regrettably, we must cull the insignificant. We champion quality, a task demanding both delicacy and ruthlessness. Thus, I echo the somber call for deletion. Jack4576 (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete (but bundle henceforth): I fail to see why this particular airline destination list (or the other two listed in RfD today) is any more or less notable and encyclopedic than any of the numerous other airline destination lists that still exist despite that 2018 RfC, including many for defunct airlines. If the intention is really to delete all airline destination lists, then let's do it in a single RfD. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. FOARP (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per FOARP, and especially per the RfC outcome. --Tserton (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since there are simultanoeus RfDs involving different lists of airline destinations I propose to center the discussion in a single page.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. Nythar (💬-🍀) 23:22, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tesfay Abraha[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cant find much on him. Seacactus 13 (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Regrettably, I find myself in agreement with this deletion nomination, in accordance with the unyielding 'SIGCOV' policy. Yet, our adherence to this rule threatens to erase a vibrant tale of an African cyclist, thus exacerbating an unfortunate, unintended bias against Africa. This bias, I fear, undermines our mission's spirit, as it obscures the diverse tapestry of global narratives. Consequently, while I support this motion, I do so with a sombre heart and an appeal for the reconsideration of our policies. Jack4576 (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCYC. LibStar (talk) 06:52, 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 speedy deleted‎ by Anthony Bradbury per G12. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adeline Chemicals[edit]

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

Spam, not notable, no sources BoraVoro (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (speedy G12): This article (created on a new user's 12th edit and also replicated in their sandbox) consists of text almost entirely copied from a page on the company website, so I have tagged it for speedy-deletion. AllyD (talk) 15:07, 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. ✗plicit 14:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Omari[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC and was unable to locate any significant coverage in Persian (علی عمری). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Afghanistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In the shadow of our cherished 'SIGCOV', I stand somber, yet obedient. The sphere's toll, an Afghan booter of note, is lamentably exiguous. Our commitment to policy, albeit staunch, unwittingly casts a pall over the Global South - an affront to our quest for universal enlightenment. This inadvertent bias, a silent saboteur, gnaws at our noble mission. Jack4576 (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless there is a redirect target. There should be a list of national low capped players for these know. Govvy (talk) 22:57, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Biscaia[edit]

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

Played 2 games as a professional then disappeared into the amateur, local tiers. I'm not seeing any coverage sufficient to pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC in my searches. I found a Wordpress blog which is not WP:RS. In reliable sources, the best seem to be Terranova, a contract renewal announcement which claims to copy a quote from Biscaia from the club's website, so is lacking significant, independent coverage. I also found Ovar News, a quote from Biscaia with no third party analysis, and Radio AVFM, which mentions him twice in passing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Regrettably, 'SIGCOV' leaves us no choice but to erase this Beira-Mar star. Bias taints our quest for knowledge, favoring the Anglosphere, and thus strays from our global mission. With reluctance, I concur with the nomination, yet I grieve for the knowledge sacrificed on the altar of policy. Jack4576 (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 19:49, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 MLW Wiffle Ball season[edit]

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

No indication found that this is a notable season. No sources in the last month for "wiffle ball" MLW[16], for Wiffle + Wildcats[17], and so on (tried it with a few players as well). Very few general sources for even the clubs (see e.g. this search[18]). I have also nominated, for the same reason, the previous season:

2022 MLW Wiffle Ball season Fram (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and United States of America. Fram (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know that the team pages can be seen on the MLW Wiffle Ball website and on the website, there are sections that show each of the teams and their win-loss records and stats in the previous years as well as other basic information. The problem though is that the only other sources I can find for MLW Wiffle Ball besides their main website are their social media pages like their YouTube page and Twitter page and I don’t know if those sources are considered reliable. I also know that there aren’t any other actual websites besides their main website that have information on the current season so that doesn’t really help things. I also know that they have a merch website too, but I personally think that it doesn’t contain information necessary to the current MLW Wiffle Ball season. As of now, it’s been hard to cite sources and find other sources since I don’t know if social media sites are considered as reliable sources. I am willing to do anything I can possibly do to make this article and the 2022 article comply with the policies.RossGA 19 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Alas, esteemed colleagues, I find myself in the regrettable position of siding with the deletion proposal. Despite the valiant efforts of our comrade RossGA, who sought to rescue the chronicles of the 2023 MLW Wiffle Ball season from obscurity, our 'SIGCOV' policy proves a relentless gatekeeper. The sources found, alas, find no sanctuary under its stringent criteria, and thus our mission's scope risks contraction, inadvertently sidelining the niche and obscure. Jack4576 (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. You can go ahead and delete the 2023 MLW Wiffle Ball season article and the 2022 MLW Wiffle Ball season article. I wanted to experiment with this topic and try to see if I could make suitable articles for it, but I realized that the limitations on making the articles and citing sources on the articles were way bigger than I previously thought. I understand why the articles are being considered for deletion and I will be totally fine if the articles do get deleted. I will do better next time if I decide to make another article on another topic.RossGA 19 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I enjoyed playing this as a youngster, there simply is not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show that it meets WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:01, 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 keep‎. There is a narrow consensus that the sources provide sufficient coverage to demonstrate notability. — Amakuru (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carlisle buried baby case[edit]

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

Not a lasting notable event or person per WP:EVENTCRITERIA item 4, despite local news coverage. Sadly such events are not uncommon and are not more notable to WP than other (alleged or proven) crimes. Facts707 (talk) 08:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Not sure about the claim that this is "not uncommon" or what "not more notable" is to WP. Articles are not based on other articles notability. It is still relevent today with searches that span as far away as Australia, New Zealand, Britain, and all the US National news media. There is still coverage in 2023: Oxygen: Where is Brooke Skylar Richardson Now, 48 Hours Season 33, Episode 3, Criminal podcasts, Saving Skylar: The Brooke Skylar Richardson Case. Sonia Chopra. 9781665722957. May, 11, 2022., Inside Edition. Significant national coverage is still following this case from 2022 into 2023. This list at WP [19] (Category: Murdered American Children) supports the creation of articles not in keeping with WP:EVENTCRITERIA item 4 (crimes, deaths, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena): . Maineartists (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because something else has an article doesn't mean that this should. It might even mean that some of those other articles should be deleted as well. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Disregard all other articles. This is in no way "common" as described above. Simple engine search "buried baby" and there is only one trial case that comes up in an engine search: this one. I have never in all my years editing at WP ever heard this reasoning: "subject was convicted of only one crime" to justify deleting an article. Just how many crimes does a person need to commit before they are considered "notable for inclusion"? It is clearly shown that this case does not fit the criteria of item 4 and has certainly proven lasting coverage into 2023 and around the world. The definition of "random crime" is: "lacking any definite plan or prearranged order; haphazard" ie assaults, shootings, workplace violence, and robberies. You are correct: "Random crimes generally aren't notable". This was/is in no way a "random crime". BLP burned and buried. Far from "random". I will admit the sources currently citing this article need to be updated to form a more notable article which include respectable news organizations rather than the "junk news" that accompany the content now. I would be willing to scrub and rework this article to make it up to WP standards with appropriate sources. It should not be deleted. Reworked, yes. Maineartists (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on BLP issues. Subject was convicted of only one crime, tone of article is seriously prejudicial against subject, and junk news coverage≠WP:N. Nate • (chatter) 15:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:NOTNEWS. Random crimes generally aren't notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not being glib. I'm actually curious. What is your definition of a "random crime"? Maineartists (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Additional sources linked by Maineartists above demonstrates WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:CRIME. If this case received only local coverage, that would be a good reason for deletion; however, this case has received both national and international coverage. Additionally, it was profiled on TV shows such as 48 Hours, Killer Cases, Murder Masterminds and Buried with Love. All of this exceeds routine coverage and disqualifies the article from meeting WP:EVENTCRITERIA item 4. Baronet13 (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per reasons provided by Baronet13 and Qwaiiplayer Jack4576 (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The extent of coverage of this event, including follow-ups, clearly indicates notability. This case, no matter how "common" some editors might think such crimes are, has received sustained interest and attention from the media, from a variety of sources and at many different points in time. Most events that are documented on Wikipedia are not entirely unique. The fact that there may be other cases like this does not detract from this case's notability. The notability of one politician or actor does not detract from another's, the notability of one iteration of the FIFA World Cup does not detract from that of the previous years, etc. It is absurd to argue that this case is not notable because there have been similar cases. Actualcpscm (talk) 08:57, 29 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. Good research by Cunard; hopefully you will consider adding some of those sources to the article. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity Fair (1978 TV series)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable, tagged for such since 2018. Nothing to support notability found in a BEFORE, but since "Vanity Fair" is a difficult search topic I am sending it here to see if anything can be found to save this article. If not, then it should be deleted. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Hong Kong. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wasn't able to find any WP:RS. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was able to find a source for Vanity Fair, which included a cast list which mentioned 8 actors, but only gave the roles for three. Rorr404 (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source that you added is nothing more than a film database site, which does not contribute to notability. Sources must fulfill the requirements of WP:GNG. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Going through the Chinese Wikipedia page, I found much more information on the TV series, although the current page does not list any sources, I was able to find this on one of the older pages: http://bbs.hkskylove.com/viewthread.php?tid=70959&extra=page%3D1&page=1 however, the main problem is that it is a dead link, looking on the internet archive does give results, which includes a summary of the plot https://web.archive.org/web/20080429072855/http://bbs.hkskylove.com/viewthread.php?tid=70959&extra=page%3D1&page=1. Rorr404 (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No plot, no article. Nate • (chatter) 04:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Articles from The Kung Sheung Daily News:
  1. "容惠雯拍「大亨」，請教精神病專家" [Yung Wai-Man films Vanity Fair, consults mental illness expert]. The Kung Sheung Daily News (in Chinese). 1978-02-20. p. 11. Retrieved 2023-05-16 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  2. "苗金鳳與鄭少秋爲拍「大亨」消瘦，章國明已返無綫報到" [Miu Kam Fung and Adam Cheng lost weight for the filming of "Vanity Fair". Alex Cheung Kwok Ming has returned to TVB.]. The Kung Sheung Daily News (in Chinese). 1978-02-21. p. 11. Retrieved 2023-05-16 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  3. "無線「大亨」，麗視「追族」，一月初又掏手瓜" [TVB's "Vanity Fair" and ATV's "In Cold Blood". Arm wrestling again in early January]. The Kung Sheung Daily News (in Chinese). 1977-12-11. p. 9. Retrieved 2023-05-16 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
2. Articles from Wah Kiu Yat Po:
  1. "劉雅英厭倦演裸戲，加盟無綫參演大亨劇集，希望憑演技建立新形象" [Tired of acting in nude scenes, Lau Nga Ying joined TVB to participate in the "Vanity Fair" series, hoping to establish a new image with her acting skills]. Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1978-01-08. p. 15. Retrieved 2023-05-16 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  2. "大亨中的漫畫化人物，盧海鵬富幽默感，討便宜永不執輸" [The caricatured character in "Vanity Fair", Lo Hoi-pang, has a rich sense of humour. When looking for a bargain, he never loses.]. Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1978-01-11. p. 8. Retrieved 2023-05-16 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  3. "張瑛因患腰痛進住浸會，盧國雄約滿後跳槽佳視，李添勝升任「大亨」監製，鍾景輝表心跡决不跳槽" [Cheung Ying admitted to Hong Kong Baptist Hospital owing to back pain. Lo Kwok Hung switched to Commercial Television after his contract was up. Lee Tim-sing was promoted to be producer of "Vanity Fair". Chung King-fai adamantly expresses not switching companies.]. Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1977-12-01. p. 42. Retrieved 2023-05-16 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  4. "無線邀朱玲玲正式簽約，張美琳重返無線拍大亨，朱克主持八位藝員簽約" [TVB invited Loletta Chu to officially sign the contract. Cheung Mei-lam returned to TVB to film "Vanity Fair", and Chu Hak presided over the signing of eight artistes]. Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1978-02-17. p. 19. Retrieved 2023-05-16 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  5. "「大亨」北海道外景，意外拍得火山爆發，秋仔阿苗昨返港" [Filming of "Vanity Fair" on location in Hokkaido: unexpectedly shot a volcanic eruption, Qiu Zi A Miao returned to Hong Kong yesterday]. Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1978-02-11. p. 23. Retrieved 2023-05-16 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  6. "陳此莉日夜趕錄「大亭」" [Chan Bei-li rushed to record "Vanity Fair" day and night]. Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1977-12-13. p. 14. Retrieved 2023-05-16 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  7. "赴日本拍「大亨」外景，鄭少秋有無限回味，一頓團年飯花掉千多元，暢談雪祭塲面忘掉驚險" [Went to Japan to do location shooting of "Vanity Fair", Adam Cheng had infinite aftertaste, a reunion dinner cost more than $1,000, talking about the snow festival and forgetting the thrill]. Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1978-02-24. p. 23. Retrieved 2023-05-16 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  8. "翡翠劇場老戲骨受器重，石堅鄧碧雲關海山，任「大亨」重要角色山" [TVB Jade's old drama is highly valued. Shih Kien, Tang Bik-wan, and Kwan Hoi-san play important roles in "Vanity Fair"]. Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1977-12-17. p. 7. Retrieved 2023-05-16 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  9. "丈夫撞車受傷已痊癒，拍大亨担演重要角色，趙雅芝重現笑靨" [The husband was injured in a car crash and has recovered. Playing an important role in "Vanity Fair", Angie Chiu smiles again]. Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1978-01-03. p. 24. Retrieved 2023-05-16 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  10. "大亨今晚入七十年代，劇情有急遽轉變，影后鬧罷拍風波" ["Vanity Fair" enters the 1970s tonight, the plot has changed rapidly, and the actress has stopped filming.]. Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1978-01-23. p. 22. Retrieved 2023-05-16 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
3. Article from Shin Min Daily News:
  1. "李司棋要和汪明荃爭天下" [Louise Lee wants to compete with Liza Wang]. Shin Min Daily News (in Chinese). 1978-02-13. Retrieved 2023-05-16 – via NewspaperSG. Ministry of Communications and Information.
4. Passing mentions in book sources that can be used to verify the article's content:
  1. Chu, Yiu-Wai (2017). Hong Kong Cantopop: A Concise History. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. p. 203. ISBN 978-988-8390-57-1. Retrieved 2023-05-16 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "1978: A series of TVB's Jade Theatre theme songs written by Joseph Koo and James Wong, including “Vanity Fair” (大亨) (sung by Paula Tsui 徐小鳳), ..."
  2. Wong, Zi-wa 黃志華 (2014). 原創先鋒: 粵曲人的流行曲調創作 [Pioneering Originality: Creation of Popular Tunes by Cantonese Opera Artists] (in Chinese). Hong Kong: Joint Publishing. p. 132. ISBN 978-962-0436-59-8. Retrieved 2023-05-16 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "《大亨》(1978年1月2日首播)"
    From Google Translate: ""Vanity Fair" (first aired on 2 January 1978) ..."
  3. Wong, Ha-pak 黃夏柏 (2020). 漫遊八十年代：聽廣東歌的好日子（增訂版） [Roaming in the 1980s: The Good Days of Listening to Cantonese Songs (Extended Edition)] (in Chinese). Hong Kong: FeiFan Publication 非凡出版. ISBN 978-988-8675-73-9. Retrieved 2023-05-16 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "我最早認識徐小鳳的歌,也是源於電視劇- 台灣配音劇集《保鑣》和《神鳳》。她在上述電台節目表示,在娛樂場所唱歌多年,早闖出名堂,只是電視台遲遲沒有聯繫她唱主題曲。1978年的〈大亨>是她首次演唱本地製作電視劇的主題曲,那時我尚年幼,已聽聞該劇收視不濟,主題曲亦沒有大熱。資料顯示,以劇集《大亨》及電影《漩渦》(黃百鳴首次投資拍攝的電影)主題曲掛頭名的大碟, 並未獲金唱片。"
    From Google Translate: "The earliest songs I knew of Paula Tsui were also from TV dramas - Taiwan dubbed dramas "The Bodyguard" and "Shenfeng". She said on the above-mentioned radio program that she has been singing in entertainment venues for many years and became famous early, but the TV station has not contacted her to sing the theme song for a long time. "Vanity Fair" in 1978 was the first time she sang the theme song of a locally produced TV series. At that time, I was still young, and I had already heard that the show was not well received, and the theme song was not a big hit. According to the data, the album with the theme song of the TV series "Vanity Fair" and the movie "Vortex" (the first movie that Huang Baiming invested in) has not won the gold record."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Vanity Fair (Chinese: 大亨) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I believe that the reason why others were not able to find any sufficient amount of information about the show is that there is not much English media coverage about the show, but there was plenty of coverage about it in Chinese, as it had aired in Hong Kong. From the synopsis on the Chinese Wikipedia page, it appears to be about three men who all are involved in Cantonese opera/theatre, all of which are friends, share a goal of becoming rich tycoons over its 85 episode run. Because the coverage is mostly in Chinese, I recommend that someone who can translate Chinese get on the project.Rorr404 (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I was able to get this cast list from a member of the Chinese Wikipedia:

演員 (Cast)：

1. 香家 (Heung Family)
- 鄭有國 (Jimmy Cheng Yau-kwok) as 香景山 (Heung King-shan)
- - Husband of Ching Suet-yee
- 湘漪 (Sheung Yi) as 程雪怡 (Ching Suet-yee)
- - Wife of Heung King-shan
- 羅蘭 (Helena Law Lan) as 凌素心 (Ling So-sum)
- - Elder daughter-in-law of Heung King-shan
- 黃文慧 (Bonnie Wong Man-wai) as 周美珍 (Chow Mei-chun)
- - Younger daughter-in-law of Heung King-shan
- 上官玉 (Sheung-kwun Yuk) as 駱少梅 (Lok Siu-mui)
- - Concubine of Heung King-shan, later re-married to Sit Keung
- 李司棋 (Louise Lee Sze-kee) as 香若楠 (Heung Yeuk-nam)
- - Illegitimate daughter of Heung King-shan, girlfriend (and later wife) of Lui Pok-man
- 陳美琪 (Maggie Chan Mei-kei) as 香蕙之 (Heung Wai-chi)
- - Elder daughter of Ling So-sum, girlfriend (and later wife) of Lui Hok-man
- 劉雅麗 (Alice Lau Nga-lai) as 香敏之 (Heung Man-chi)
- - Younger daughter of Ling So-sum
- 關菊英 (Susanna Kwan Kuk-ying) as 香若梅 (Heung Yuek-mui)
- - Third daughter of Heung King-shan
- 黃允財 (Wong Wan-choi) as 香祖輝 (Heung Cho-fai)
- - Fourth son of Heung King-shan
- 吳新偉 (Ng San-wai) as 香紹基 (Heung Siu-kei)
- - Son of Chow Mei-chun
2. 雷家 (Lui Family)
- 石堅 (Shih Kien) as 雷嘯堂 (Lui Siu-tong)
- - Uncle of Lui Yat-fung and Lui Yat-fan
- 黃新 (Wong Sun) as 雷一峰 (Lui Yat-fung)
- - Lui Yat-fan's elder brother, husband of Chu Sau-mei, father of Lui Pok-man, Lui Hok-man and Lui Yee-man
- 程可為 (Rainbow Ching Hor-wai) as 朱秀眉 (Chu Sau-mei)
- - Second wife of Lui Yat-fung, stepmother of Lui Pok-man and Lui Hok-man, mother of Lui Yee-man
- 劉丹 (Danny Lau Dan) as 雷一帆 (Lui Yat-fan)
- - Younger brother of Lui Yat-fung
- 陳嘉儀 (Chan Ka-yee) as 羅曉芬 (Law Hiu-fan)
- - Wife of Lui Yat-fan
- 朱江 (Paul Chu Kwong) as 雷博文 (Lui Pok-man)
- - Eldest son of Lui Yat-fung, boyfriend (and later husband) of Heung Yeuk-nam
- 周潤發 (Chow Yun-fat) as 雷學文 (Lui Hok-man)
- - Second son of Lui Yat-fung, boyfriend (and later husband) of Heung Wai-chi
- 廖安麗 (Annie Liu On-lai) as 雷綺文 (Lui Yee-man)
- - Daughter of Lui Yat-fung and Chu Sau-mei, stepsister of Lui Pok-man and Lui Hok-man
Rorr404 (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. Besides, Chow Yun-fat is a mega superstar in Asia and I find it hard to believe anything he was in is non-notable. BorgQueen (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard's research. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:09, 23 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 merge‎ to Rainbow crossing. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of rainbow crossings[edit]

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

That something is a notable topic, doesn't mean that we need a list of examples of that something. One province (equivalent to a US county) in Belgium alone had 24 of them by late 2022[20], there are many more in Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria (multiple cities have more than one of them), ... Fram (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Sexuality and gender, and Lists. Fram (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lol the list at Rainbow crossing is more comprehensive than this one. That needs a lot of work to not just be an example farm – concur that there are (happily) far, far too many of these to be able to catalogue them here. Reywas92^Talk 13:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a valid deletion reason, Wikipedia is a work in progress and you are encouraged to be bold and help fix it and we don't have a deadline to work to complete, which is why the dynamic list template even exists to point out that it can and will grow. Raladic (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject as a whole should satisfy WP:NLIST since these crossings are discussed as a group or set in the context of the whole LGBT movement. While the list is currently incomplete (and likely will never be comprehensive), there's potential for improvement with further editing. The list itself doesn't warrant deletion just because it's a work in progress. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Rainbow crossing as while the list has been significantly improved, it can fit nicely in the main article without need for a WP:SPLIT at this point. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the discussions on the talk page on Rainbow crossing, the page was getting unwieldy and thus it was suggested to spin off a List article that actually lists some of the crossing, which is what this article is. It passes WP:NLIST as these crossings are a symbol and spreading around the world to celebrate the LGBTQIA+ and some in part as protests against restrictions and thus the listing provides encyclopedic value to show the spreading and localities as a stand-alone list to accompany the main article.
Please dont tear down the house while it's being built, Wikipedia is a Work in progress. Raladic (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In no reasonable interpretation of NLIST does being "...a symbol and spreading around the world..." matter. We're not tearing down the house while it's being built; we're weeding the garden. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the claim of meeting NLIST above, I see no evidence of that. After a look, I can't really find any sources discussing these as a set. Keeping a record of every one of these gets into unencyclopedic WP:NOTDIR territory, especially considering the sheer number of them. The main article can easily accommodate some discussion of the history, like the first, or maybe installations in major cities, but if you need to spin off a list for such a short article (and this is a short article...barring WP:PROSELINE style notes of installations, which is basically already a list, there is very little general information), then something is seriously wrong. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of articles discussing them as a group - [21], another talking about how the crosswalks are being attacked under false pretenses such as this case in London [22], another about many crosswalks in the guardian [23]. New York Times about claimed safety issues - [24]

And that was just a few hits from the first page of searching. Raladic (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of those, only the first one is even remotely applicable. The rest either talk about the crosswalks in general, which goes to notability of the main article, not the list, or they're about a more general topic and so don't contribute. That first source is reasonable, but it's just one, and it's clearly got a POV to it. And there's no reason why some of that information can't be added to the main article...I see some stuff about official support, etc. There's nothing that warrants this laundry list. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the last link of The NY Times article that also addresses them as a group.

There’s also this article discussing them as a group that has subsequently been cited [25].

All of which give credence to WP:NLIST as a group in order to keep the main article on topic of the topics and keep the listings here, which was also the consensus on the talk page of the main article.

I have expanded the main article with a new specific section on some of the attacks and vandalism against them as a symbol and also added it as a relevant mention in the lead of the list now. Raladic (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Raladic. Satisfies WP:NLIST and being actively worked on. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't satisfy NLIST. And being actively worked on doesn't change its notability. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm from West-Flanders, Belgium, the rainbrow crossings are so common. We have 26 and there will be more in the future. None of them meet the list. Tomaatje12 (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

off-topic attack on IP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ooh, an anon IP apparently familiar with our terminology? Not suspicious at all! By all means, comment under everyone 'keep' contribution, a surefire way to win hearts and minds! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] And do not edit other users' comments! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Many of these are already covered in Rainbow crossing so this serves as a content fork. None of the crossings have their own articles (each one is referenced by a single citation of varying depths of coverage), so the notability of the list as a whole is unclear. Ajf773 (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: the most notable ones into Rainbow crossing. With respect to WP:LISTN, we also aren't an indiscriminate record of every rainbow crosswalk. I think there is room for expansion in the main article with the inclusion of some of these. Curbon7 (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reworked the list by addressing one of the main points made in the discussion here against it, which is to limit the scope so that it doesn't become an indiscriminate list of all rainbow crossings in existence.

I compared to other lists and found that the most fitting criteria for inclusion in the list is the first in a country or state, or otherwise notable (though for now I didn't actually include any "otherwise notable"), so that it becomes a sort of chronology of the spread of them around the world.

I have added a column to the list to define what each of the listings notable inclusion criteria is, which helps add additional encyclopedic value for the chronology and I believe is better suited to be in the List article, rather than creating WP:UNDUE weight if it was in the main Rainbow crossing article.

I believe this should address the concern of it being indiscriminate and as a whole, helps address the criteria of why the stand-alone list is of value per WP:NLIST, along with many other such lists on Wikipedia (such as first tall structures/skyscrapers, first mountain ascent, first office holders (various lists on that one), aviation firsts, first films by country, List of LGBT firsts by year to list a few).

As it is a list in progress, I still don't make any claim to completeness, but hoping to have some time to keep adding to it and others will help expand it as well.

For those of you that had concerns about the article, please take another look at the reworked list to reassess. @Fram @Reywas92 @Ajf773 @Curbon7 Raladic (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would much prefer a merge to Rainbow crossing in this case. Rather confused why undue weight would apply here, especially because, again, the bulk of the content of the main article is already a selection of firsts and notable ones. There's no need for separate articles here. Reywas92^Talk 05:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a short list of notable examples belongs in the main article, if thoroughly checked (e.g. in the list at AfD, the supposedly first permanent one in Belgium isn't the first one at all, and this claim isn't made in the reference anyway). But if that list becomes too long, then it should be pruned, not split off. Fram (talk) 07:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies about the Belgium error, the article made it look like first, I have removed it now as I found another from Ghent that says it was permanently installed before that in 2020 based on an article I found, but it also doesn’t claim it is the first permanent in Belgium, so might need a native speaker that can find a native article as my English search skills seemed to have come up dry.

The other country articles in the list were more explicit that they were firsts.

And thanks for your comments and suggestions, I just originally boldly split out the list as that seemed to have been the consensus at the articles talk page itself as felt it might make the main article too big. But after the discussion in he AfD here now, I think a merge and redirect back to the main Rainbow crossing seems to be the consensus. I will perform the merge once an admin closes the AfD discussion. Raladic (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to rainbow crossing. If we're just going to mention the most important rainbow crossing, you can do that in a history section in the main article, just mentioning firsts or likewise. This list really doesn't need to exist. AryKun (talk) 06:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that this does not pass the WP:NLIST barrier. Anyone interested can add any info to the Rainbow crossing article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rainbow crossing. Since the primary article is not too large, this list is pretty much a WP:CONTENTFORK. I would suggest rewriting the Rainbow crossing#History section to make it less list-like and transferring this list into a separate section. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Rainbow crossing for the same reasons that have been outlined above. There's no need for this list to be a standalone list. It may be appropriate to reduce the number of listings slightly for the merge; I don't think there's much value in attempting to create a comprehensive list of rainbow crossings. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:59, 29 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 23:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Pregnant[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreleased film that does not meet notability requirements. Gulte, GreatAndhra, tollywoodtimes, tupaki, mirchi9, and teluguvision are all unreliable sources. The film was previously deleted along with other films at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bootcut Balaraju (ctrl-f Mister Pregnant). Good option would be to draftify if the film is notable after release. DareshMohan (talk) 10:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails . LibStar (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to meet notability guidance WP:NFILM —Mgp28 (talk) 22:06, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 13:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P Kalyanasundaram[edit]

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

Doesn't have non-independent coverage, PR puff pieces all around on the net with the same material and nearly identical wording, the article too appears to be a vanity page. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are about his charitable donation, with nothing otherwise. I'm not seeing a notable career. Nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable career beyond his donations. Fails WP:GNG. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:38, 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. ✗plicit 12:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Miracle of Science[edit]

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

(Apologies for procedural mistake in PRODing)

Seems to be non-notable; Google is only really showing me user-generated sources, and I can't see any suitable targets for redirect/merge as author and artist both seem non-notable. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even restricting the search to the years following the webcomic's publication, there are no RS on it. It may be a good work of art, and it may have had a passionate fan community at one point, but without RS we're in no place to judge that. If someone does find reliable sources I will happily change my mind. --Tserton (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BoomboxTestarossa I recommend removing the bold from "delete", because it makes it appear as though you are casting a !vote, and as nominator you cannot do this. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Webcomics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only found mentioned in online stores and online encyclopedias. The subject does not seem to have reviews or coverage that can pass WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Sadly there do not seem to be any sources covering this one. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have added a reference to the article that seems Ok (a conference by a Ph professor in economics). The sources pointed at the article talk page 16 years ago (this an this archived versions), maybe could be considered as reviews by "experts in the field" (I'm not totally sure though). Anyway, it seems that the webcomic was very popular at the time. Alexcalamaro (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not notable and not by a notable author either. Hadal1337 (talk) 15:44, 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 withdrawn by nominator‎. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Jaynez[edit]

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

PROD was removed because of an old PROD from 2007 (why isn't there a statute of limitations on that?), but my reasoning still applies. As I said, there is "No appearance of notability beyond maybe the Native American Music Awards, though those are themselves questionable (see their page)". QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New Mexico. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A simple, quick search online reveals that he won a Grammy Award in 2005 and meets GNG. I've added a few citations and some content; more improvements can be made. It seems that the nominator might not have performed a WP:BEFORE. Netherzone (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my removal of it just now, that's not a Grammy Award which exists and the source was confusing it with the Native American Music Award (aka the Nammy) which is already mentioned. Notice the same source getting it right in the other article of theirs you added: "Jaynez, who last year won the Native American Music Award for best new artist" from an article dated in 2005. You accuse me of not performing a BEFORE (which I did, don't be ridiculous) and yet you didn't bother to check Grammy Award for Best New Artist#2000s to confirm who won in 2005 (It was Maroon 5 and Jaynez wasn't even nominated).

I appreciate your effort finding and adding those sources. Personally, I don't think just two websites (one of which doesn't feel all that reliable if they don't know the difference between the Grammys and the Nammys) is enough to meet the burden of GNG, and I haven't changed my mind about deleting this yet. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove citations that have useable content just because you disagree with a sentence. Netherzone (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no disagreeing, just you adding a false statement and me removing it and the source which was solely supporting that statement at the time. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the notability is low-key, maybe even borderline, as most of the publications are small. But I think it passes the basic threshold. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, now I'm willing to withdraw. No clue how none of these results came up in my search but clearly there's enough here now that I'm just gonna step aside and let Netherzone handle the rest. Thanks! QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:20, 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. Numerically, it's roughly 3:1:1 for delete / keep / merge or redirect. In terms of arguments, the "keep" side mostly makes arguments in the WP:ITSUSEFUL vein which is not a strong line of argument. Notably, nobody here cites reliable sources that substantially cover the topic of "giantology". Consequently, there is rough consensus to delete the article, but with the proviso that WP:REFUND may undelete it for draftification and a possible later selective merger, subject to editorial consensus about the material to be merged. Sandstein 06:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Giantology[edit]

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

Non-notable, fringe science neologism. The sources cited in the article just use "giantologist" or "giantology" in passing when talking about this or that hoax; there's no significant coverage of it as a concept. – Joe (talk) 12:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Science, and Archaeology. – Joe (talk) 12:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets our guidelines for WP:GNG. This is a term which is used for centuries to describe those who study giants: there there are many reliable sources. The article was just started one day ago and more sources exist. Finally, the article clearly states that this is a hoaxy topic from start to finish. But we keep hoax and fringe articles that meet WP:NFRINGE, WP:NHOAX. Bruxton (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, you have to admit that it's at least written in a weirdly "in-universe" way. The lead says much of the study of giantology has been based on myth and a lack of physical evidence. So by implication, there are giantological studies based on physical evidence of giants, a mythical creature? And then the body goes on to claim that there are "written", "archaeological", and "palaeontological" records of giants, which again—and I can't believe I'm actually writing this—are mythical creatures that are not real.

Anyway, the main point here is that I don't believe this is a notable fringe theory. The article currently cites 11 sources. Four of these are self-published pseudoarcheology/pseudohistory books and magazines, completely unusable garbage. Four are newspaper clippings about individual giant sightings, and two of those are over a hundred years old. Two are sceptical sources that only use the word "giantology" in passing and in a mocking fashion. That leaves one[26] which I can't access. So which of these are you basing your claim that "giantology" is a notable concept that passes the GNG on? – Joe (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently adding additional sources to the article: it was only started less than a day ago. We should consider that this term has been in use for more than 150 years and many sources exist. The reference the nominator makes to self published sources is in regard to the further reading section. Giantology is now being discussed in popular culture. The opposition to the topic and subsequent stop sign at a similar article which is an approved DYK nomination feels like an WP:IDONTLIKEIT. People naturally come to Wikipedia to read about terms such as this, and we serve our readers by neutrally covering a topic that is lasting with sustained use. I will not be commenting further, but I will continue to add references to the article. Bruxton (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what's next, bigfoot-ology? No evidence that this passes WP:GNG, article is chock-full of weasel words and broad claims that even if taken at face value would barely put up a (poor) facade of notability. - car chasm (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator (Joe) and car chasm. Very much fringe and non-notable. - Donald Albury 17:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First reference is to the fringe magazine Atlantis Rising, second is to something by the Nazi Frank Joseph. Doug Weller talk 18:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or else Redirect to Giant as a plausible search term. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this case no. Someone would already be typing in the word giant, so this would be a redundant search term in terms of supporting a redirect. Redirects are cheap and useful when they expand searchability, but this isn't one of them. KoA (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could also be a plausible bluelink in an article: 'giantology' should redirect to 'giant', if we're not going to keep this article. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked into this enough to cast a !vote, but I don't think this is a plausible bluelink as the word "giantology" does not currently appear in article text anywhere else on Wikipedia. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Bruxton (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing that indicates the term or concept passes GNG. Another major problem is that the article does a poor job of discerning if the 'field' is about studying medical giantism or pseudoscientific waddling.★Trekker (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I feel that Jengod brings up some good points. I do think it might need to be moved somewhere, possibly giant lore or similar.★Trekker (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree on this being a WP:NEOLOGISM, fringe, and non-notable. KoA (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add part of the reason for deletion is what seems to be a WP:COATRACK effect now. People are starting to add information/discussion about giants in the article, but it's not focusing on the nominal subject of "giantology", but content that would belong moreso at giant, folkore, etc. That should not be confounded with notability of the subject at hand. KoA (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing like minded people with this notice. As an editor, this is rather disappointing to see. Bruxton (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not canvassing to place a notice on a noticeboard about something that you think is problematic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThere is too heavy a reliance on fringe sources, and the article seems like a mish-mash of vaguely related concepts. WP:TNT Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect we have an obligation to find WP:ATD. it is logical that people will search for this term since it has a long history of use both in sources from many years ago and present day. I think the article can stand on its own but if editors believe it should not exist, then it should be redirected to a target like Giant to help our readers. Lightburst (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But the sense in which it's used and long history is as in the sense of the french wiktionary entry a history or treatise on giants. So the article should be pointing to Inca Garcilaso de la Vega and ~~Denis Henrion~~fr:Nicolas Henrion etc., way different than any of the current content. fiveby(zero) 23:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know from reading paleontology literature that during the 19th century and before the bones of many prehistoric animals were speculated to be those of giants prior to their scientific evaluation (Cuvieronius and Megalosaurus come to mind) but the concept of "giantology" seems very synthy to me, and there are only 26 uses of giantology on google scholar, whos use cases are very diverse, with a heavy focus on mythology, which this article doesn't cover at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:gigantology maybe, some kind of article looks interesting here, but this one is TNT. fiveby(zero) 00:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree about TNT about this article. There's maybe an article that could be created on early modern period speculation about giants, but that's not the topic of this article. The google scholar results still look sparse though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Stephens Giants in Those Days: Folklore, Ancient History, and Nationalism (available here) but the more i think about it an expansions of Giant#Literary and cultural analysis and maybe some fossil record geomythology(if that's the correct term, never seen it before) would be more appropriate. fiveby(zero) 02:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there may be people who describe themselves as giantologists, and the term has sometimes been picked up in newspaper stories and fringe sources relating to them, this doesn't seem to be a recognised area of academic study. One of the cited sources actually describes them as "self-proclaimed". The article also conflates mythical giants with real very tall people. There's an example of the term being used (in a newspaper story) about a doctor who happened to have studied very tall people, but it doesn't seem to be a recognised medical specialisation either. Brunton (talk) 05:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article relies on fringe sources and WP:TNT applies here. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Keep or draftify: I am concerned that many of the delete arguments seem to be arguing against the validity of giantology as a field of study, or against the quality of the article, rather than against the notability of the subject. It is simply fact that Wikipedia accepts articles on fringe theories, lies, hoaxes and so on: you might think that it shouldn't, but that's a debate against policy rather than an argument from policy. I'm also concerned to see WP:TNT so readily invoked: the page itself tells us to argue it with caution. User:Bruxton has done an excellent job of setting out the rationale for the article, though I would like to see the promised sources come into the article. AfDing an article barely a day after its creation seems premature, put mildly, if not outright uncivil. Declaring it unfixable certainly seems unwarranted at this juncture. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's the scope of the article you are thinking of? I can't find a reputable dictionary that defines giantology or a good reference work, but see it used in these senses:

when the author really meant gigantology, a tale or treatise concerning giants
derisively, as one would add -ology to other words
per Hemiauchenia, fossil record to explain mythical giants or argue humans were larger in the past
Genesis 6 giants, JSTOR 4193170 etc.
medical but no longer current, as teratology, study of monsters

I was confused by #1, but think that should just be expansion of Giant. fiveby(zero) 17:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All Bruxton has said is that sources exist; we're still waiting to hear what they are. And I came across the article because it was nominated for WP:DYK, so its creator evidently thought it was finished enough to feature on the main page, even though it was only a day old. – Joe (talk) 07:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just move to giant lore; I think the topic is notable and the article is fine but giantologist isn't a serious job description, etc. jengod (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just added some material on the history of the study of giants (Pliny, Herotodus, Boccaccio, et al) and I have to feed my kids now but I'm digging into a 1946 book called "Apes, Men and Giants" (Franz) that might shed some light on how "giants" have influenced thinking about primatology and evolution. (material for a different article but until the 1800s no one in the West had ever seen an adult male orangutan [only trafficked babies] so the skeletons of adult orangs were believed to be a completely diff species) jengod (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2: added some geomythology stuff and big primate skeletons (anthropology). My rushed searches suggest "giant lore" (or giantology if you will) is valid and important subtopic in comparative mythology and comparative literature. I suspect there's a parallel article to be written about cross-cultural dwarf lore with a nod to Homo floresiensis etc etc. I suspect that both articles would need a "history of medicine" section as well, to examine how and when doctors began to understand factors in human gigantism and dwarfism and thus fork away from "Grendel scary" primitivism. And now I'm running away to go watch Ted Lasso byyyyyyeeee jengod (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion sounds equivalent to rewriting the article from scratch (on a rather different topic) to me, but fair enough if you want to put the work in. Why do we need separate articles on giant lore and giants, though? – Joe (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe I'm leaning toward changing my vote but I'm not sure to what LOL
I think there's an interesting folklore studies and history of proto-science aspect to this

And I think there's the modern pseudoscience which I personally feel is done in bad faith etc.

I think a merge to cryptozoology might be the best course, in part bc that's a relatively higher traffic article that can appropriately contextualize the current state of "Giantology." And then the history of science and geomythology bits can be slotted into giant. jengod (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge into Giant. I can imagine there might be an article on the topic specifically of the study of giants, and that it could standalone, but I don't think the current article or its sources are there yet. (There also seem to be multiple different uses for the term "Giantology".) As for the Giant article, it's ironically small and underdeveloped, so it could use some new content. CMD (talk) 08:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I've been working on trying to cleanup the article due to the WP:COATRACK issues you allude to (still pretty strongly on delete myself), redirect is really the next best option after that I can see since there really doesn't seem to be any real distinction from giant lore. This article is really just a near WP:POVFORK to loosely write about anything giant related in folklore. In trying to tackle some of the source misuse issues at the article, I'm not seeing anything worth merging at least, and if there is, probably better to do from scratch at relevant articles with appropriate focused sources rather than be tied to content at this article. KoA (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Stephens again, "‘De historia gigantum’: Theological Anthropology before Rabelais" wplibrary, looks useful, tho only have time to go through part. Mostly theological, but points to the 'Giant' entry in the ninth and eleventh editions of Britannica, where ..serious discussions of ' the conception of giants, as special races distinct from mankind,' or cautiously affirming that ' so far as can be judged from actual remains, it does not appear that giants, in the sense of tribes of altogether superhuman stature, ever existed, or that the men of ancient times were on the whole taller than those now living.' changes to a discussion of gigantism. Also: The Britannica evidence is significant in that it marks the approximate period at which Christian theologians and philosophers had to admit that they could no longer hope to explain away empirical evidence and continue to take for granted the existence of Giants several times larger than human beings, or use the Giants as proof of the veracity of the flood-story of Genesis or the entire Old Testament.

There's much good content here i think, but the problem is setting the scope of the article to prevent the coatrack issues you are pointing to. fiveby(zero) 14:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also there's Adrienne Mayor The first fossil hunters for geomthyology, which along w/ literary analysis and lore should probably just be an expansion of giant. fiveby(zero) 14:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete, mostly per KoA's coatrack, but it is certainly not a neologism. First organize the content in the giant article, then create sub-articles if needed. Draftify/userfy and allow recreation w/ a good scope if anyone is willing to put in the work. fiveby(zero) 15:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, how did you decide it wasn't a neologism? I can't find particularly good sources which identify this as a term of art beyond the downright colloquial -- and even then it is scattershot. Trying to even define the idea seems hopeless as different groups seem to use the term for different ideas. jps (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, admittedly sparse 19th century usage. My impression is that it was mostly used derisively, as here in All the Year Round, which is fun reading but nothing to base an article on. "Those crackpot giantoligists, still trying to prove antediluvian giant races..." maybe? By "wasn't a neologism" i just meant it wasn't recently coined. fiveby(zero) 04:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gigantology is 1811 in English, earlier in French, and in dictionaries. Maybe should consider giantology as mistaken usage, always read as gigantology? Anyway some good related content for the main article and a long way from needing a sub-article and a title. fiveby(zero) 05:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Maybe we should transmogrify our WP:NEO rules into something more like WP:PAROCHIALTERM. I'm sure there are obscure words first used by Shakespeare which enterprising agnotology proponents would love to repurpose to their own ends just so that they can declaim a lack of per se neologisticality. :) jps (talk) 11:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We're getting a bit abstract here, but the reason I called it a neologism is because it is a term appears to have (to quote WP:NEOLOGISM) little or no usage in reliable sources. Clearly it's not a term that has been recently coined—sticking "ology" on the end of "giant" is not exactly creative writing—but my understand is that, until it gains widespread usage, it's still a neologism as far as our policies are concerned. – Joe (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Afd's can often be fun and entertaining, and thanks for this one! I can see List of gigantologies as educational and withing WP's scope. Beginning: A gigantology is an account or treatise concerning giants, mythological, erudite, or satirical... That brings us back to the article topic, there is no giantology, the study of giants, but many gigantologies with some considered scholarly for their time. That is i think the correct context for the reader? I thought L’auteur de cette gigantologie espagnole... by Buffon was pretty creative, and by OR the origin of the term, and paleontologist are referring to the quote when they say 'spanish giantology'. fiveby(zero) 14:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OED (print edition) has gigantology but not giantology. Brunton (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Fiveby above. Giant lore/mythology is one thing, but "giantology" no. Doug Weller talk 16:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to "giant". Using minor historical hoaxes to coatrack and give credence to a WP:FRINGE neologism is not how we do things here. He iro 17:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to pseudoscience; I'm changing my vote. I'm all for keeping derpy beliefs (past and present) about giants in the encyclopedia, but I'm concerned that the article as it stands gives undue weight to "I'm a giantologist!!" claims without appropriately contextualizing them. As others have noted the sources are garbage (and one's a Nazi!?!) which would be FINE if they were cocooned in 5x as many other sources that comment to the effect of "this is garbage and here's why: ..." I think the article as it stands now would tend to reinforce someone's priors of "giants are real bc [waves mythology of choice]" without giving them any real evaluation of what modern "Giantology" is about. The reason there are no such "debunkings" is because it's so far out there no academic has been motivated to respond. That may change in the future. There also might be offline literature we can't find, etc. But I'm wary that as it stands by maintaining an underdeveloped article with the name "giantology" we're inadvertently collaborating in spreading misinformation. jengod (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, especially the last sentence. Although, that first DYK nom hook for the related Giant skeletons (United States) article was worded in such a way as to imply it might be legitimate didn't seem all that inadverent to me.([[27]]) He iro 19:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism. This one, thankfully, not coined by Wikipedia, but a neologism without independent notice nonetheless. jps (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Giant, especially the subsection "Archeology and paleontology". Merging into cryptozoology or pseudoscience, as others have suggested, would also be acceptable. Whether or not the term is a neologism, it necessarily overlaps strongly with Giant, since that page covers the mythology and history of belief in giants – which is essentially this page in a nutshell. --Tserton (talk) 08:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it seems to be a neologism not supported by independent notice. The term is not found in acceptable independent secondary sources that discuss this term or use of this term per WP:NEO (2nd paragraph). And I think using a neologism as redirect is unacceptable. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It doesn't really fit anywhere else, and it's an interesting subject. It's also unfair to call it pseudeoscientific, the Giant of Castelnau for instance is a very interesting find. Lots of serious ancient historical sources describe some set of apparently quite large individuals which were more common in the past. If we have pygmies, the opposite seems reasonable. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really fit anywhere else because it's nonsense. Lots of serious ancient historical sources also describe vampires, werewolves, gods, cyclops, and dragons. They aren't real either. We do not have articles on vampirology or dragonology for the same reasons, pseudoscientific hogwash shouldn't be given credence just because you think it's "interesting". He iro 02:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that WP:NEOLOGISM would apply here, as well as the rest of the rationale of the nom.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge very selectively with Giants. That article is largely a survey of the subject in various different cultures. This might be provided from this article with a little more introduction, by taking some material from the "Investigation of giants" section. A lot of the rest of the article is a compilation of trivia or fringe material. Sometimes it is useful to have articles on pseudo-science, whose object is to expose the falsity of the views in question. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment quite a few delete AfD rationales (including the AfD nomination rationale) have referred to this a neologism, but that ignores the historical use in secondary sources. Here is a source to show it is not a neologism an editor offered this source to me on my talk page and it is from 1868. From my own research I am certain this is not a neologism. Contrary to the nomination rationale (as seen in this reference) there actually is significant coverage for the term throughout a long period of time. I encourage the AfD !voters to check out the WP:Neologism policy because many of the deletion rationales appears to be incorrect in regard to this term. Bruxton (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing so much by focusing on the word giantology and trying to make it a field of study. "Giantology and Dwarfiana"? should WP have the second article also? Wood was writing a book of curiosities for a popular audience, and by 1868 and the time 'giantology' made it's appearance in english the scientific debate had mostly run it's course. Some holdouts adhering to the biblical passages in opposition to Cuvier. Citing Wood here exemplifies what is wrong with this article. I could replace that with a better citation saying 'giantology' is "a belief in giants", but really the article should just go. fiveby(zero) 05:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been discussed above. I nominated it as a neologism because it appears to have little or no usage in reliable sources (WP:NEOLOGISM), not because it's never been used before. One book from 1868 doesn't change that. As for the "significant coverage" you keep asserting is out there, it's been over a week and we're yet to see it, so... – Joe (talk) 07:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the topic is anathema to the editors who came here from the fringe noticeboard, but I did not create Giantology and contrary to Fiveby's statment, I am not "trying to make it a field of study". Note: the word neologism literally means, "a newly coined word or expression". So I am surprised that editors would double down on that rationale. The same editors who are determined to delete this article took over Giant skeletons (United States). I am unable to edit either article because a group of editors creates a WP:LOCALCON which can overrule any change or reject any source. I see Joe's statement above "it's been over a week and we're yet to see it". FTR I have not edited in over a week, I took some time off which I know Joe saw because he messaging me and another editor on my talk page and I said I was taking a break. FYI: when I did edit this article I was twice reverted and I was reverted multiple times on the Giant skeletons (United States) article. Even after saying all of this, I know that everyone here is operating in good faith. I am sure the closer will sort it out and determine if this is a "newly coined word or expression". Bruxton (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I came here from FTN, and don't dislike the topic at all, but think there is some really great educational content for WP. It is not a neologism, but as other editors have pointed out it fits squarely within the WP:NEO MOS guideline. To really understand the topic and what is valuable content you need to go back at least to early 17th century, well before 'giantology' made it's appearance in english sources. The dialog mostly in french and using gigantologie. What is and should be anathema to editors is shown in the first two sentences of the article: Giantology is the study of giants. The study involves mythology, history, language, archaeology and anthropology. and the citation to Wood in support. That is a load of crap and indicative of editors following the WP:FRINGE sources rather than reading and understanding the WP:BESTSOURCES. fiveby(zero) 15:35, 24 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 12:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vikasa Vidya Vanam[edit]

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

Nearly completely unsourced and fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, India, and Kerala. UtherSRG (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Andhra Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easily fails WP:GNG. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 09:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Found nothing other than trivial mentions. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:39, 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 delete and redirect‎ to Pint of Science#International. Black Kite (talk) 10:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Élodie Chabrol[edit]

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

After looking at the current sourcing, the academic has a weak h-Index of 14, there is no in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable, secondary sources, so meets neither WP:NSCHOLAR or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and France. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Dear Onel5969, your points cast a clear reflection of the quandary at hand. With a humble h-Index and an overreliance on interview-based sources, it seems we are hemmed in by the strictures of WP:NSCHOLAR or WP:GNG. In such a predicament, our path is laid bare - one of adherence to the rules as they stand.

Yet, as I endorse a deletion, a sense of longing resonates within me. I yearn for a different set of guidelines, more encompassing, less prone to the painful severing of knowledge. While we navigate the present constraints, I harbor hope for a future that doesn't necessitate such regrettable sacrifices in our shared quest for understanding. Jack4576 (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pint of Science ~~Delete~~. Chabrol seems to be doing great work in science communication, but hasn't attained the level of notability set out by the GNG or NSCHOLAR guidelines. I've had a look at the French version of this page, and it's almost entirely based on primary sources, so it's unlikely we're missing a significant body of source material on the subject. --Tserton (talk) 11:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient coverage to meet the notability guideline for biographies, and the h-index means the notability for academics is not met either. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The h-index is only one tool for evaluating one of the eight criteria in WP:PROF. XOR'easter (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we wrote NPROF in acknowledgement that it's important to communicate to the public the stuff that academics do, even though the world of secondary sources is biased against the concept, and most academics are not great at getting themselves discussed in reliable secondary sources. There's a certain irony that we, ourselves, have created a set of rules that makes it near-impossible for someone engaged in publicising scientific work to achieve Wikipedia-notability, no matter how well-known they are, and no matter how interested the public might be in their activities - and even: no matter how sure we are that the information is correct. Yes, the nomination is correct. And we should be thoroughly ashamed of ourselves. Elemimele (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to scratch my guilty conscience, can you think of a way of gauging notability without relying on our current definition of reliable sources? I mostly agree with you, but can't come up with a way to reform the notability guidelines without opening the way for Wikipedia becoming a sort of glorified LinkedIn. --Tserton (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's have a little look at how notability of people like Chabrol could be established. Firstly, we could look at whether prestigious institutions where they've worked decide to feature them and their work (obviously to a greater extent than the usual staff page), for example UCL at "A pint of careers story with Pint of Science’s Elodie Chabrol | UCL UCL Researchers"[28]. But although a prestigious institution has chosen to feature this because it considers her work notable, we don't, because it's an interview. Can't be used. We could use a Nature careers Q&A article (yes, that Nature. The one that's pretty exclusive) "How a lab visit for people with neurological conditions inspired the global Pint of Science festival (nature.com)"[29], but that merely mentions her.. "including from our international director, neuroscientist Élodie Chabrol, based in Paris, who brought more countries on board.". So we can't use it because it's a passing mention, and an interview to boot. But if we believe that she's been influential in spreading Pint of Science to other countries, we could consider what this means to the world. Is it a relevant thing to have done, compared, say, to writing a textbook or a highly-cited paper (both of which would be guaranteed notability by NPROF)? Every UK university that I checked engages with pint of science. It's pretty big. But notability is not inherited so we can't use it. We could look for recognition by the learned societies, such as the British Psychological Society [30] "Hundreds of pints of science | BPS" but it's a passing mention, and again, based on an interview with her organisation. All of these are, I think, evidence that selective sources choose to talk to and about her, and there are other science communicators in that situation. But because their influence cannot be counted in citations or textbook sales, they fall foul of NPROF, and by their very nature, they communicate. They talk to people about science and what they do. And talking is interviews. And even if the pope and the president arrange a special joint meeting to interview you, that's still inadmissible as evidence of notability. I honestly don't know what the solution is. But until we find one, this encyclopaedia will suffer from a huge bias towards mediocre movies, moths, obscure villages, winners of Nigerian awards, and lists of software updates, because all of those things generate sources that we believe. Other potential sources include radiofrance.fr[31] (unusable as it's an interview). She's also valued by industry, at least hellobio[32] and Casio[33] but they're interviews and non-independent sources. My argument is (1) that if enough people go wildly out of their way to want to interview someone, it might mean that person is notable, and (2) nearly all information about people comes from interviews, it's just some journalists write about the interview, others quote the interviewee. I'm far from convinced by our belief that a verbatim quote is less reliable than a rephrased quote? Sorry, that was a bit of a wall of text. Summary: science communicators generate interviews, and ought to be judged by the breadth and standard of those who choose to publish their interviews, but that's not how we do things. Elemimele (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews can count towards notability, since they can be an indication that the world at large has taken notice of the subject. It depends on who is doing the interviewing, whether the questions are just PR softballs, etc.

Founding a science-outreach organization could qualify a person for wiki-notability under WP:PROF#C7 (influence outside academia in their academic capacity). If many universities engage with that organization in a substantial way, we could argue for WP:PROF#C4. I've no opinion yet either way whether that is the case here, but it's a possibility in principle. XOR'easter (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these issues are inherent to all businesspeople, not just science communicators. Hundreds of thousands of people have been interviewed in high-profile venues about orgs they founded or products they developed that are widely used. Why should we say someone working adjacent to academia is more deserving of a standalone than someone with just as many interviews in another field? How do we determine which publishers are prestigious enough that even non-independent coverage by them is indicative of notability? The problem with interviewee statements isn't (just) that they might not be reliable, it's that they do not reflect secondary commentary on the subject by someone independent of them (and in that vein, the interviewer rephrasing the interviewee's responses (e.g. quoting without quote marks, summarizing what the subject "felt" or "thought") should also not be considered independent). We need SIRS to have distilled the relevant aspects of a topic and discussed them in their own words to have any clue what content should be included in an article (which is part of why we avoid non-biography STEM articles on topics that have only been covered in primary research data, even if they're published in Nature). For that reason, the longstanding consensus at AfD/AfC has been that interviews that do not contain SIGCOV in the form of independent analysis from the interviewer/author do not count towards notability, regardless of where they're published. If this wasn't the case, probably a good 70% of the ~800+ bios of statspage-biography athletes I've helped delete would have been kept, as would most of the musicians and businesspeople. JoelleJay (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The worst-case outcome here would seem to be a redirect to Pint of Science. XOR'easter (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking it over, that wouldn't be a terrible outcome; she's got a decent write-up there, and at the moment most of what we have to say about her is closely related to pint of science. Elemimele (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm relatively new to AfD, but second Elemimele's observations. These discussions rely too often on citation metrics subjectively applied. For example, who is to say an h-index is weak? And what does the h-index really mean? A scholar could have two works cited 1000 times each and have an h-index of 2 ... sigh. As open science efforts advocate for DORA, Leiden Manifesto, the Hong Kong Principles 1, and as the H-Index is panned 2,3, 4, 5, why is Wikipedia AfD dragging its feet? Jaireeodell (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 08:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C7 or, failing that, redirect to Pint of Science. XOR'easter (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pint of Science#International if notability cannot be established under the guidelines. Seems a sensible AtD as she is already mentioned there. Perhaps a bit more about her could be added to that article, including her photo, so long as it doesn't upset the balance there. Rupples (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC) (edited to more specific target Rupples (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Delete as notability is not established. Was ready to promote a redirect to this "Pint of Science" fest, but unless I am misreading, she only started up a branch of the festival in France, not Pint of Science itself. Zaathras (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Taken a look at the article's history and it was redirected by two editors to Pint of Science#International for perceived lack of notability but reinstated by the article creator and restored at a RfD. Changing to more specific redirect target in my !vote above in light of this. Rupples (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had been holding off on opining here because of an apparently-mistaken impression that she was the main founder of Pint of Science itself, rather than someone who imported a branch festival to another country. That sounded like the kind of thing that should be notable, but now the case is much less well-founded. For someone to be notable for science communication rather than for doing science itself, the standard appears to be WP:GNG rather than WP:PROF. In this case I don't enough in-depth and independent coverage about her and her own role in the science festival that she helped import. Per Zaathras it is not clear that a redirect is justified. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 29 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 12:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good Men (film)[edit]

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

I PRODed this because I couldn’t find in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Deprodded with the rationale that it won a notable award. I’m not convinced that the award it won is sufficient reason for keeping it, and I couldn’t see an obvious merge target, so bringing here. Mccapra (talk) 09:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Mccapra (talk) 09:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Dear Mccapra, your vigilance in upholding our hallowed guidelines is beyond reproach. In scrutinising the evidence available for "Good Men", I confess I am obliged to concur with your assessment. The dearth of substantial commentary in reliable independent sources, despite the film's commendable recognition at The Los Angeles Arthouse Film Festival, steers us toward an unfortunate course of deletion.

Such compliance, however, is not without its pangs of regret. It weighs heavily upon my conscience that we are compelled to erase a testament of artistic accomplishment, one that has been honoured in the sphere of short film. Is this not a contradiction to our purpose, our commitment to the preservation of knowledge in all its varied forms? While we adhere to the present guidelines, I fear we are straying from the broader purpose of our encyclopedia. A purpose which, in my humble view, should encompass a magnanimous approach towards the many faces of human endeavour, such as this fine film. Jack4576 (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

well we’re not compelled, it’s up to us to make the judgement. I mean, if there are some sources to discuss we can always decide that we want to keep something even if it’s borderline. I’ve managed to keep a number of articles in that grey area. My issue with this is I’m not even seeing any grey. Also it’s true that because of its name this film is particularly hard to search for. Maybe someone with a better knowledge of film or better access to offline sources can weigh in. Ultimately we’re not condemning a topic to oblivion by deleting. If there are sources out there somewhere then someone else can have a go at maybe writing a better article in the future. Mccapra (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A google search returns almost no reliable sources that mention this film, and the few there are mention it only in passing. --Tserton (talk) 11:51, 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) 11:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Eurocypria Airlines destinations[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOT (specifically WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:NOTCATALOGUE, WP:NOTDIRECTORY) and the 2018 RFC that decided that exhaustive lists of airline destinations are not appropriate content for Wikipedia.

This is a listing of the destinations of a (now defunct) airline. It is not clear to me why this article should be treated any differently to, say, one listing exhaustively the locations of the outlets of Benihana, Roy Rogers, Tower Records, or Little Chef might be. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages or Expedia.com, it is an encyclopaedia that summarises what reliable independent sources say on the subject - an exhaustive list of all the products/services of a commercial enterprise is the opposite of a summary.

Even if the WP:NOT/RFC issues could be removed somehow, this article would still fail WP:CORP as it is sourced only to the company's own website. WP:CORP applies as this article is related entirely to the activities of a commercial enterprise. Nothing that would pass the audience requirements of WP:CORP was found in my WP:BEFORE search. FOARP (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Lists, and Cyprus. FOARP (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the thorough reasoning laid out by FOARP. --Tserton (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete (but bundle henceforth): I fail to see why this particular airline destination list (or the other two listed in RfD today) is any more or less notable and encyclopedic than any of the numerous other airline destination lists that still exist despite that 2018 RfC, including many for defunct airlines. If the intention is really to delete all airline destination lists, then let's do it in a single RfD. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP and Rosbif73: So let's withdraw the other two AfDs and add the other airline destination lists to this AfD? That's what the WP:MULTIAFD guideline sets out for multi-page deletions anyway. By the sounds of it, it'll be a fairly lengthy list, but I'd be happy to help. --Tserton (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosbif73 and Tserton: - This is basically an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. I'd prefer to work on these individually to avoid the inevitable "Keep, it's a trainwreck!" !votes. Maybe after another few small batches of these articles has gone through I'd try a bundled nomination, but not yet. FOARP (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so much arguing WP:OTHERSTUFF as a procedural keep on the basis of WP:MULTIAFD. I hope I'm mischaracterising your intent, but it sounds awfully like "let's start with the obscure ones that almost nobody is watching, then use these deletions as precedent for the rest". If you really want to start with just a few articles to test the waters, wouldn't it be better to go with something more representative, such as British Airways or American Airlines? Also, for information, have you nominated any other airline destination lists for deletion recently? Have any been deleted? Rosbif73 (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not to distract from your question to FOARP, but just to comment - the RfC is precedent enough, given that it was specifically on this very topic. It would probably have been sufficient basis for speedy deletes when it was held in 2018, and might even still be now since the consensus hasn't changed. It might have been tactically marginally better to start with a major airline, but in light of the existing consensus to not have these articles (and of course in general always) I wouldn't be so quick to set aside the assumption of FOARP's good faith. --Tserton (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that speedy deletion of the articles was attempted in 2018. An AN discussion was then held saying effectively that the RFC decision stood but that deletion had to be done through AFD. FOARP (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me in turn assume good faith in that your intent here is not to set up a Catch-22 where these articles can neither be nominated for deletion individually because they have to be bundled, nor bundled for deletion because “it’s a train-wreck!”. I should point out, though, that bundling is not mandatory, and should not be done where you think people will likely raise a train-wreck objection. I think that is likely in this case.

Personally, I think this article and the other two nominated today is very representative of the airline destination lists corpus as a whole. If you want to see the other airline destination list pages that have been nominated for deletion you can see them by clicking on the aviation or lists DELSORT links above. One (Adria Airlines) has already been closed as delete, but there are two others from previous days still running (I’m on my mobile so I can’t get their exact names). FOARP (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly there is no obligation to bundle them, but there must be literally hundreds out there and I can't see any good reason to do them one by one. Admittedly there will probably be more opposition for some of the major airlines' lists, and the age of the RfC will no doubt have to be addressed at some point (WP:CCC). How about a compromise, bundling large groups of minor and/or defunct airlines together, then addressing the majors individually or in smaller groups? Rosbif73 (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rosbif73 - Honestly, having handled a few of these bundled deletions in the past (the Turkish Mahalle articles, the Iranian "village" articles), I really think it's best to run through a reasonable number of them one-by-one before I even think about bundling. Bundled nominations tend to guarantee drama, and WP:TRAINWRECK accusations are easily made. It also helps bring out the arguments that are likely to be made in a wider discussion so that you can see what they're going to be ahead of any wider discussion. Reviewing the three earlier bundled deletion attempts (2006, 2007, 2015) diving straight in to a bundled deletion appears to have been a mistake. Smaller bundled discussions may be the next step after some more of these discussions have been closed but not yet. FOARP (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since there are simultanoeus RfDs involving different lists of airline destinations I propose to center the discussion in a single page.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the 2018 AN discussion linked above the view was expressed by a number of editors that there should not be a mass AFD of all of these articles. The close of that AN discussion stated that they should be dealt with “in orderly fashion”. It also clearly stated that AFD is the only forum for such discussions.

I’m open to that consensus having changed and dealing with all of these airline destination articles in one go. However, it cannot be the case that deletion en masse is not allowed AND deletion individually/in small groups is not allowed. That just sets up a Catch-22 where articles that manifestly fail our policies and guidelines (particularly the 2018 RFC, WP:NOT, and WP:CORP) remain on here permanently. FOARP (talk) 06:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. Nythar (💬-🍀) 23:23, 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 no consensus‎. No prejudice against merging at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biodiesel by region[edit]

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

Hopelessly out of date and missing many cites Chidgk1 (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ WP:DINC small jars tc 16:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment, Cambodia, China, Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, and Costa Rica. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Singapore, Thailand, Italy, Lithuania, Spain, and Uruguay. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not valid deletion rationale. Being incomplete and outdated are reasons to update an article and improve its coverage, not reasons to delete. Nearly all articles meet some definition of "incomplete and outdated". Folly Mox (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say it was incomplete - my point was that a lot of it is uncited. How about I merge it to Biodiesel? If the info was there more people would see it and might tidy it I guess. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to biodiesel. It's worth noting the above keeps don't even comment on the article itself. This roughly fits under WP:NLIST's purview in that it deals with cross categorizations like this. I don't really see sources talking about the subject by region as a whole. Instead you either have biodiesel itself or discussion largely focused on individual countries like Biodiesel in the United States. It's an issue of splitting too much and not having sources appropriate at that level. If a certain region is worth mentioning in the main biodiesel article, splitting, linking to it, etc. then do that and skip this intermediate article. This article though is largely WP:INDISCRIMINATE by nature in the cross categorizations without the needed sources I mentioned earlier. No prejudice against deletion either since people would likely just end up at the biodiesel term in the search box first anyways rather than typing out the by region part. KoA (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would have voted delete from the start if this was the rationale. My original !vote was only addressing the invalidty of Chidgk1's. small jars tc 13:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that I didn't see anything justifying a merge, hence the redirect above. Still nothing against deletion here either. KoA (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Biofuels by region, merging what is referenced. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That article includes other fuels that aren't biodiesel and honestly runs into a lot of the same issues this one did. Better to just redirect to the topic of biodiesel specifically instead of to another shaky list-style article. KoA (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is simplest, with note that development/updating is desired and that wp:MERGE to Biofuels by region with development/updating could usefully be done, at editors' discretion. If a merger is appropriate, there is no requirement that it be implemented immediately by the AFD closer; it suffices to post notices that a merger should be implemented. As pointed out, nomination's reasons are invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doncram (talk • contribs) 18:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At this point we don't really seem to have anyone arguing to keep the article in terms of WP:PAG at least. This one is like the other initial keeps that focus on the initial nomination being invalid and not actually commenting on the notability of the topic, but also using WP:USEFUL, and common AfD argument to avoid.

Instead, the topic itself is not a notable list in terms of WP:NLIST policy. If it's not notable at that level of spliting, we don't just let it sit in case someone wants to use the content. If it was redirected, the article history would still be there anyways. I already reviewed the article in my earlier !vote, and there wasn't anything really to merge. That's why most WP:PAG-focused comments are looking at redirect to biodiesel or outright deletion. The only focused discussion so far has been on where to redirect, and the only other option brought up so far besides biodiesel being Biofuels by region that was less suitable for being too broad. KoA (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:37, 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. ✗plicit 12:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Predator Poachers[edit]

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

ATTACK page created by a now-blocked editor who was blocked for pushing a pro-pedophilia POV. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Organizations, Sexuality and gender, Internet, and Texas. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There appear to be enough hits in Gnews. The New Yorker is a solid reference, most are details of the subsequent arrests made after their "investigations" I suppose you'd call them. Would prefer one or more solid references. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The New Yorker story only gives them a passing mention: The videos, which were made by groups like Dads Against Predators, the Predator Catchers Alliance, or the Alabama Predator Poachers... (and that might be a different group entirely, since Rosen is from Houston, Texas). It could be a reference for the general topic of vigilante justice against child molesters, but I don't think it contributes to the notability of Predator Poachers specifically. XOR'easter (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point, I read it and got a different impression. To be honest, I'm not fussed if we keep the article or not. That was my best reference for "keep"ing it , the rest didn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. The topic of this article is well-sourced, and has obvious notability. These multiple AfDs appear to be part of a systematic attack and opinion canvassing operation against the creator of the Minor-attracted person article, which unambiguously referred to the topic (acknowledging the considerable controversy surrounding it) rather than mobilizing it. Wikipedia is not censored, and is driven by notability and mentions of a topic in reliable sources.

~~I'd suggest that some admin further up has a good look into what is happening at certain bulletin boards, and whether it violates existing policy. --86Sedan 09:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)~~ - (pro-pedophilia account blocked). ValarianB (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, they're against anti-semetism but for this particular thing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's good to examine these articles in the light of these events, but I would rate this one a ~~Keep~~, as it looks like there's enough for notability (and I'm not seeing the same synthesis problems as with some others). I agree with the neutrality tag, but I think that could be addressed by editing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, after thinking about what other people have said, I'm going to shift to Weak Delete as Joe suggests below. And ValarianB's send-to-draft suggestion if anyone wants to take it on sounds good. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I agree that this is essentially an attack page targeting the group's founder. And read in light of the creator's other edits, it's pretty obvious what motivated it. That said, it does cite a decent number of reliable sources, and most of them do indeed criticise the founder. So this is basically a vote for deletion per WP:TNT; I'm not sure if it's possible to write a policy-compliant article about the group, but I am sure that this isn't it. However, I'll happily change my vote if someone can rewrite it. – Joe (talk) 11:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete now but Send-to-Draft if someone wants to take it on. there appears to be a possible semblance of an article here, but if would have to get the proverbial WP:TNT and start over, as this is an obvious attack page. ValarianB (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that there is/was a now-blocked editor canvassing for keep votes in this discussion via email. --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hatchet job, unless someone volunteers to redo it from scratch. XOR'easter (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. The article is a coatrack existing solely as a place to attack a person associated with the group. If someone can find secondary sources talking about the group and its effects on society, please write a new article. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TNT and WP:DENY apply Dronebogus (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Delete Seems more like an attack page directed towards a person in the group. Equine-man (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly an attack page, going into needless details. Also, concerning if it was indeed created by a pervert as alleged above (though, can't confirm right now)...NyMetsForever (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Article is a hatchet job. Dawnbails (talk) 14:26, 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 no consensus‎. By my count the numerical tilt is 12-9 in favor of keeping, but several "keep" !votes do not engage substantively with the sourcing, and there were serious concerns brought up about several of the sources. However, among the comments that remain there is genuine good-faith disagreement about whether specific sources are substantive enough, and about whether they qualify as intellectually independent of each other. Neither issue is, in my view, clear-cut enough for the closer to disqualify or give lower weight to a set of opinions. As such I don't see a consensus here, and given that's this discussion has been open for a month already (despite only two relists) I'm putting it to rest. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Santiago Rublico[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Philippines, and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources already present on article which show notability. Yet another poorly thought out AFD from Onel5969. Giant Snowman 01:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am confused by the nomination, what is wrong exactly? There are more sources online, just do a google search!! Govvy (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of SIGCOV. A case of WP:TOOSOON. Of the sources in the article, [34] (same article is also linked as [35]) is SIGCOV, [36] is a database listing, [37] is minor article on his teams website and thus a WP:PRIMARY source, [38] does contain some information but not nearly enough to be the second best source in a GNG pass, [39] is a match report with couple of trivial mentions, [40] is a primary source from the Philippine Football Federation that mentions him once in a lineup listing, [41] is a Q&A interview with little prose, [42] is a database listing. If editors can present other significant sources, ping me. Alvaldi (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Depth of sourcing hasn't been addressed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is well referenced & well written. More references can also be found online. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the sources presently cited in the article. Abstrakt (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - interesting how only one of the !votes above, for Deletion, is actually based in policy.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it seems all of them are based in policy (the keeps are saying there's sufficient sources for notability/GNG, the delete says there's not). BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no they are not. Simply saying something meets WP:GNG, while ignoring the source assessment showing that it does not, is not the same thing.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreeing with one user's source analysis does not automatically make one's comments non-policy based. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
in this case, the GNG comments are policy based; looking at the GNG sources that were already in the article. I'm troubled that User:onel5969 would suggest that a disagreement over whether some sources are GNG, makes a comment non-policy, when everyone seems to agree that there is one good GNG source (especially when WP:SPORTCRIT is met for this recent and very young player). Nfitz (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm concerned that Nfitz doesn't understand that SPORTCRIT does not trump GNG, and 1 good source does not meet GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one has said that SPORTCRIT overrules GNG; it's never black and white and should be evaluated in the context of specific deletion discussions. At the same time, there's no requirement in GNG there be multiple sources - what it says is that "multiple sources are generally expected". Furthermore, the claim that there must immediately be more than one GNG source is in contrast to the recent discussion at WT:Notability (sports)#Interplay of NSPORTS and SPORTCRIT! Nfitz (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Clearly significant figure in Filipino football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As of 5/7, Sources 1, 5, 7 and 10 seem to meet the criteria for GNG. This is also a good source - https://vietnam.postsen.com/local/268637/The-defeated-general-of-Vietnam-Tel-suddenly-summoned-Atletico-Madrid-defender-urgently.html. KatoKungLee (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BIO and WP:GNG with sources pointed out in the article and presented by KatoKungLee. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to source analysis by Alvaldi. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:MrsSnoozyTurtle, the source analysis by Alvaldi is over 10 days old, and doesn't, cover either one and two which both appear to meet GNG. Alvadi themself agrees that Sunstar meets GNG. Nfitz (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I now realise that there's a third source not discussed in the source analysis above - in Bahasa Indonesian. Nfitz (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nfitz. Timothy has done a more recent source evaluation, and the findings are the same. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of the two sources I pointed out above, Timothy didn't mention one of the GNG sources, User:MrsSnoozyTurtle, and he then called one (aka 7) promotional. Do you agree that one is promotional? Nfitz (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the Sunstar article which everyone seem to agree is GNG, we also have two that KatoKungLee found above, and one which User:Kokoeist quietly added to the article after the source analysis without commenting here. Looking at KatoKungLee's source above, 1, 5, 7, and 10. 1 is the Sunstar article. 7 is the article the unassessed article that Kokoeist added that I think is GNG. 10, Alvardi dismissed as an interview, and I agree with that. That leaves 5, which Alvadi says "... does contain some information but not nearly enough ..."; I disagree, I think that article is sufficient. So I see 4 GNG sources (from 3 different publications). Nfitz (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I realized I missed 9, which is also GNG. That makes 5 GNG sources from 4 articles.; others have included 10 - which I agree is an interview, and isn't GNG. Nfitz (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The SunStar source called SIGCOV above is a profile of him as an 8-year-old, apparently written from an interview with his mother, and does not contain the amount of independent commentary directly on the subject needed to elevate it above the requirements of NYOUTH. An article based on this news piece would also be extraordinarily unbalanced and unencyclopedic because, again, he was 8 years old. The Post Sen piece is a routine call-up sourced from ASEAN Football/other football orgs announcements -- not independent SIGCOV. The first Mundo Deportivo source is another routine call-up hyping an upcoming friendly -- not SIGCOV. The second is a follow-up article with almost identical background info to the first (the last paragraph is essentially duplicated). JoelleJay (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ROUTINE would be a box score or a list of players in a call-up announcement. An article that's all about one player who is called up, is not ROUTINE. I'm not sure the relevance of the two Mundo Deportivo articles having similarities; they already only count as one source, so having two articles almost 3 weeks apart only makes for a stronger claim that this counts as one GNG source. Also, there is no WP:NYOUTH - and I don't know what this is referring to. Nfitz (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that NYOUTH is WP:YOUNGATH. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON as the available coverage in independent reliable sources is not in-depth enough to satisfy WP:GNG. I agree with JoelleJay about the SunStar source, and in any event it's insufficient by itself to meet the GNG. The two Deportivo Mundo articles contain some information, but it's not as in-depth as I would expect if this footballer was notable. The overall theme of all of the coverage is this footballer looks promising and might have a future, but until there is more written about his exploits (beyond a couple of friendlies defeats - which he apparently did nothing of note in) I don't see this passing. Jogurney (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Questionable, based mainly on a subjective interview.	1. "Rare talent". SUNSTAR. July 23, 2014. Retrieved April 22, 2023.
Database page	2. ^ "Santiago Rublico Colminas". Liga MX (in Mexican Spanish). Sub Internacional. Archived from the original on April 1, 2023. Retrieved April 22, 2023.
Duplicate of above #1	3. ^ Jump up to:a b c "Rare Talent". SunStar. July 23, 2014. Retrieved March 26, 2023.
very brief article with very brief coverage of subject, not SIGCOV	4. ^ "Santiago Rublico es nuevo jugador del Atlético Madrileño Juvenil A". September 15, 2022. Retrieved March 26, 2023.
very brief article with very brief coverage of subject, not SIGCOV	5. ^ "El canterano Santi Rublico da el salto a la absoluta de Filipinas". March 19, 2023. Retrieved March 26, 2023.
Mention in article about game	6. ^ "Philippine Azkals bow to host Kuwait in friendly". March 25, 2023. Retrieved March 26, 2023.
Not SIGCOV, promo	7. ^ "Santi Rublico, de ser internacional absoluto con Filipinas a entrenarse con Simeone" (in Spanish). April 1, 2023. Retrieved May 6, 2023.
Mention in article about game	8. ^ "Philippine Men's Under-22 Squad for the 32nd Southeast Asian Games". April 29, 2023. Retrieved May 1, 2023.
Mention in article about game	9. ^ "Indonesia Gilas Filipina, Bek Atletico Madrid Debut Buruk di SEA Games" (in Indonesian). April 30, 2023. Retrieved May 6, 2023.
Interview	10. ^ "Santi Rublico: «El Rayo, más que un club, es una familia que ha estado ahí siempre en todos los momentos»". Retrieved March 26, 2023.
Database page	11. ^ "Santi Rublico - Global Sports Archive". Retrieved March 26, 2023.

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 21:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with some of these, and two (7 and 9) are very misleading.

1) does include material that would be from an interview (I'd question any newspaper article where no one is asking questions!), it isn't an interview.

5) is over 200 words, and is not too short. The example in GNG of something being too short is 14 words. I'm aware of no standard that sets it over 200!

7) you say is promotional - can you look at that again, because that looks like another 200+ word article. I see no promotion.

9) (from CNN) you dismiss as a match report - but it's far more than this, primarily discussion Rubico (mentioning him 10 times!) while only mentioning a single other player (once).

A) Furthermore, you didn't address the Vietnamese source discussed above that isn't in the article; it is also GNG, with 5 of the 7 paragraphs directly addressing the subject.

4) is self-published - I think you may have pasted the wrong text here, User:TimothyBlue - and yes, not GNG. Nfitz (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources 1, 5, 7 and 10 indicated by Alvaldi are reliable, and so is the one indicated by KatoKungLee. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG 😎🙃 01:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone was suggesting SunStar or Mundo Deportivo were not reliable sources. Matagigantes.net also appears to be a reliable source (it claims to be an independent media outlet with its own group of editors). The problem is none of those sources provide sufficiently in-depth coverage of the subject of the article (and in the case of matagigantes.net, the source isn't independent of the subject as it's a publication of an interview with him). Jogurney (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the sources suggested and I believe that they're in-depth enough for the individual to pass WP:GNG. So, don't you dare argue with me. My "keep" stands no matter what. ASTIG 😎🙃 04:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe User:Jogurney you are forgetting about WP:BASIC in WP:NBIO, which states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.

Taking the SunStar reference and combining the pair of the Mundo Deportivo references, with the CNN reference (9) and the Vietnamese reference discussed above, does give multiple independent sources that can be combined to demonstrate notability. Nfitz (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot to quote the rest of that line, which states trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. BilledMammal (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are trivial - they are all articles about the player; which ones of 5), 7), 9), and A) do you consider trivial mentions, User:BilledMammal? I believe they are all far more than a trivial mention that can be combined to demonstrate notability. Nfitz (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that SBKSPP asked Superastig to help save some articles at AfD[43]. JoelleJay (talk) 01:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the articles that were discussed (days earlier) were for "a few stations and TV channels". There was no mention of this article. Nfitz (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SBKSPP linked to the Philippines delsort, which this AfD is categorized in. JoelleJay (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Someone draws someone else's attentions to some other AFDs about TV stations, and then they noticed this AFD from looking at those, and that's enough to cast aspersions about User:Superastig? Will you go after me next, because Das osmnez was on my talk page just before this nomination, discussing poor nominations last month? Nfitz (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz, JoelleJay loves to make an issue out of something small like this. It's been a few months since the last time I participated in deletion discussions. All their accusations against me are just sheer hissyfits. I wasn't asked specifically on what article I should vote in. I only picked a handful that I believe are worth being kept. Therefore, I don't consider that canvassing. Not canvassing at all. And it's the truth (and nothing but the truth) no matter how judgmental JoelleJay is. ASTIG 😎🙃 04:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know I can just go to @Dougal18 or @Alvaldi or @BilledMammal's talk page, link directly to the sportsperson delsort, and ask for help getting articles on footballers deleted. JoelleJay (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some of the sources are reliable, but they don't demonstrate passing WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BASIC tells us that multiple reliable sources can be combined to demonstrate notability. As the sources in question are far more than trivial, then the reliable sources DO demonstrate that GNG is passed. Nfitz (talk) 04:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple significant and non-trivial sources (the term NBASIC uses is "substantial", which is a higher barrier than "significant" - the example NBASIC gives of a substantial source is a 200 page independent biography). BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NBASIC doesn't use the term "substantial". It uses the term "not substantial" as in "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". It's not necessary to prove that any non-substantial sources that are combined to demonstrate notability are substantial! I ask you to strike your comment ... which quite frankly does not make sense - perhaps you misread "not substantial"? Nfitz (talk) 05:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misread my comment; I'm agreeing that they don't need to be "substantial", but they do need to be "significant and non-trivial", for the reasons I provided. BilledMammal (talk) 05:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I did misread it; in that case, I actually don't understand the comment (or the relevance of 200 page biographies). NBASIC is met. Nfitz (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that it doesn't create an exception to the requirement for multiple pieces of WP:SIGCOV; all it says is that we can combine sources that are less than substantial (with the example of being substantial being a 200 page biography), not that we can combine sources that are less than significant. BilledMammal (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As documented there are many examples of SIGCOV. I'm glad we can both agree that a 200-page biography would be substantial - I'm not sure what the relevance is though. Nfitz (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This deletion makes zero sense... using TimothyBlue's bizarre and double standard analysis, [44], [45], [46], [47], and [48], all of which have secondary coverage, are somehow all equivalent to small purely promotional and purely Q+A interviews using TimothyBlue's "logic"... and on top of that, Santiago is a clear topic of interest with many sources, many of which are good, and has ongoing career in Philippines senior national team and in academy of Spanish La Liga team Atlético Madrid, both of which receive decent amount of media coverage... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The CNN source is just a match report (routine coverage) that quotes from Communist Party mouthpiece Tien Phong (obviously unreliable). Dougal18 (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The CNN reference is not routine, User:Dougal18. The article is primarily about the player, mentioning him 10 times. ~~That a single sentence is sourced to a Vietnamese newspaper doesn't make it unreliable.~~ Though I'm not sure why we would consider Tiền Phong unreliable simply because it (like all media in Vietnam) is government-owned. It's not listed at WP:PRP as a problematic source, and even then in similar situations when they are listed, the guideline is to use with caution. I don't think a minor negative comment about a player's performance is an issue; and even if it were, there are 9 other references to him in the CNN article that are not referenced to Tiền Phong! Nfitz (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a match report about Indonesia U22 v Philippines U22. Making a defensive mistake and conceding a penalty are routine occurrences in football and are not sigcov. If it was sigcov then anyone who has played football would have a Wiki article. "A single sentence is sourced to a Vietnamese newspaper" is inaccurate as the article takes multiple negative quotes from Tien Phong. A newspaper from the 178/180 ranked country by RSF is unreliable regardless of whether it's listed at WP:PRP or not. Dougal18 (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a match report. It's a 350-word article about how a single player performed in a match. Even if it had been a match report - WP:ROUTINE tells us that this doesn't make the match significant. It doesn't preclude match reports being GNG sources for other types of article. I was wrong (sorry) about the attribution to Tiền Phong - it's significantly more than one sentence. I don't see how that's an issue though - it's a major publication. We should also reference the original Tiền Phong article; you will notice that it's only about 250 words, and that CNN supplemented the article from Tiền Phong with additional information about Rublico. Nfitz (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why are there links to WP:ROUTINE in NSPORT if we are not supposed to apply the definition/examples of "routine" used there to the types of coverage NSPORT considers "routine"? The same material considered routine for notability of events is considered routine for notability of biographies in NSPORT:

Individual games: A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game
SPORTBASIC: must provide reports beyond routine game coverage

NSPORT also explicitly includes match reports in its definition of "routine" in multiple places: repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage and substantial and prolonged coverage that is: (1) independent of the subject; and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. [...] The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications. It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability.

The relevant portions of ROUTINE linked above are:

Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine. Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. JoelleJay (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even besides that source, the other 4 above don't and using basic logic, heis a clear topic of interest with ongoing career in Philippines senior national team and in academy of Spanish La Liga team Atlético Madrid, both of which receive decent amount of media coverage... he already has satisfactory coverage and will most certainly get way more in the future as he is only 17... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not understanding your focus on ROUTINE. ROUTINE is definitely applicable to NSPORTS - so a routine boxscore, or article that only mentions a player as being in the line-up is definitely ROUTINE. But an article about a player's performance in a match, discussing only that player, isn't routine. You are misapplying ROUTINE, without considering the context. Nfitz (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Game play summaries is not "box scores". Sports matches are explicitly considered routine events that generate routine coverage. These articles are not sufficient to meet the higher standards of YOUNGATH. JoelleJay (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ROUTINE mentions box scores - not extensive articles about a match. Though this isn't even that, as it's about the player in the match. To dismiss this as ROUTINE is fundamentally wrong. Nfitz (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NSPORT mentions routine game coverage. Game play summaries are routine game coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you read that reference in NSPORT it says "local sources must be independent of the subject, and must provide reports beyond routine game coverage". These are not local sources, but are national and international sources. Also as pointed out - the summary in question goes well beyond routine game coverage, but is a discussion of a single player. Nfitz (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the only place "routine game coverage" is discussed in NSPORT; and ROUTINE is not limited to just "sports scores", it encompasses all Planned coverage of scheduled events, and the underlying policy just says routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports.

And anyway, most of the coverage is local. Coverage in the Atlético Madrid subsection of the online version of Mundo Deportivo, by dedicated Atlético Madrid reporters, is local.

The human interest story in the Sun Star Cebu outlet is local.

You haven't addressed the YOUNGATH issues. JoelleJay (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't addressed the BLUDGEON issues either. Nfitz (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you are implying that JoelleJay is bludgeoning, they have made seven replies. You have made twenty-three. BilledMammal (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm not just referring to JJ. Nfitz (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than issuing vague aspersions, who are you referring to? With this reply I am now on eight. BilledMammal (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just about quantity, it's about quality too. Spurious comments claiming that Philippine and Spanish sources are local, while completely ignoring Indonesian and Vietnamese sources is ... unusual. Nfitz (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient sourcing to meet WP:BASIC. ResonantDis_tortion 07:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG further subject is 17 years with an ongoing career.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~ Delete. Changed from Keep to Delete due to discussion below: Available sources might not be intellectually independent of one another due to government control. I think some of the above arguments miss part of the point of WP:BASIC. What's important is the independence of the source, i.e., the publisher, not interviewees in those publications. My analysis is this: Of the available references in the article, 5 constitue SIGCOV: 1, 5, 7, 9, and 10. These articles are from 4 distinct sources, and there is no indication that any of them are particularly unreliable. Yes, WP:BLP has a high standard for sourcing, but it should be remembered that the claims being made are not particularly contentious. They hardly go beyond "this footballer exists and he plays for this club." With 5 references to articles devoted to either the player himself or his individual performance in a game, WP:BASIC is more than satisfied. This media coverage has also been sustained in the sense that it does not relate to a single event, and it is likely to continue as Rublico continues to play football. I really don't see any reason why this subject would fail the notability criteria. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC); edited 08:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Actualcpscm, content repeating what an interviewee says fails independence and PRIMARY, as mentioned at OR and in numerous other discussions (see various AfDs in both sports[49] and non-sports[50][51][52][53][54]), regardless of where it is published. There are also multiple other problems mentioned above, including passing YOUNGATHLETE, which enforces stricter requirements on source locality and routine coverage. NSPORT also requires athlete articles have at least one cited SIGCOV source, so BASIC is not applicable except under IAR. JoelleJay (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JoelleJay! I couldn't find a policy or guideline referred to as YOUNGATHLETE, could you point me directly to what you're referring to? Since I'm not sure what you mean, I can't comment on that right now.

I'm happy to set aside the interview for now, but the 4 remaining sources are still good enough. Source locality is not in itself an issue: WP:SPORTCRIT establishes that local sources need to be evaluated with particular care for independence and routine coverage, but none of the sources I have pointed out are routine coverage under WP:ROUTINE. The nature of the CNN Indonesia article with regard to this could be debated, but I would argue that it is not routine coverage as it focusses entirely on one player. I also don't see any reason to believe that they are not independent of the subject, again setting aside the interview for this argument. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi@Actualcpscm, the guideline is WP:YOUNGATH, which states High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is: (1) independent of the subject; and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. The first clause excludes all school papers and school websites that cover their sports teams and other teams they compete against. The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications. It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability.

The other issues with the CNN Indonesia article are that a) it is derived wholly from a news source under absolute control(*) by the Vietnamese Communist Party, and b) it is 100% negative coverage of Rublico. Using it as SIGCOV would result in our article spending a lot of prose strongly deploring his performance at one U22 match of the 2023 SEA Games, based on the analysis of an unnamed reporter in a newspaper owned by the National Communist Youth League and explicitly described as "anti-West".

JoelleJay (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every Tuesday, the editors of the media that answer directly to the party’s central organs – including VTV, VOV, Nhan Dan, Quan Doi Nhan Dan (People’s Army), Cong An Dan Nhan (People’s Public Security), Lao Dong, Tien Phong, Thanh Nien and Phu Nu – and the heads of the provincial departments of propaganda and education have to attend a briefing in Hanoi chaired by the heads of the party’s Central Department of Propaganda and Education. During these meetings, the Department of Propaganda and Education tells the media what can and cannot be reported and the way each story should be handled. On Wednesdays, the heads of the provincial departments of propaganda and education go back to their provinces and organize similar meetings with the editors of the local media. The local branches of the Department of Propaganda and Education also give their own instructions to the local media and obviously monitor them. Prevention and guidance are the lifeblood of propaganda.

JoelleJay (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The government of Vietnam's control of the news is completely irrelevant, and more than any other one-party state. If the article was about a politician, yes take with a grain of salt. But it has no bearing on GNG, and it's wrong to assume that they are publishing bias about minor foreign athletes. There was nothing published there that doesn't jibe with many other sources. Vietnam has been a relatively stable country for years, since they rid themselves of various colonial powers; do we ignore sports media from other similar, but friendly countries, like Cuba? Nfitz (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much about Indonesian government control of the media, so I'm just taking what has been said to be true here.

The problem is that this means the sources are not intellectually independent of one another, which is necessary to establish notability. Again, independence from the subject is clear and the coverage does go significantly beyond routine coverage, so YOUNGATH does not seem to be a problem to me. But if all our sources are under control of the same government, they're not intellectually independent. Actualcpscm (talk) 08:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Timothy's analysis above. Quite simply, the sources in the article at present are not sufficient to construct any sort of meaningful article on this subject, several are primary and others are too short. — Amakuru (talk) 07:23, 31 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feminine wipe[edit]

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

Fails GNG for having barely any coverage and no sources have been added for 13 years. (Roundish ⋆t) 01:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Products. (Roundish ⋆t) 01:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Feminine hygiene#Cleansing products as a proper ATD. Nate • (chatter) 03:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to Keep with Dr_vulpes' sources added. Nate • (chatter) 13:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added sources and cleaned up the article a bit. I would be open to merging it with Feminine hygiene as the entry on both is a little lacking. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 03:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think Dr Vulpes's source additions means that this article scrapes by WP:GNG; some more sources that are just about the wipes themselves would be appreciated, but not necessary to save the article. I don't think that it should be merged to Feminine hygiene as that article mainly has links to other articles in the section it is already in. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Added sources allow the article to meet minimum standards for WP:GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:PAGEDECIDE - the topic and information in this article appears to need context that is available in the Feminine hygiene article and could be further developed there, in accordance with WP:NPOV policy, so it seems better to include this information (and sources in this article about other feminine hygiene and care products) in the main article, although probably not the press release. Beccaynr (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am honestly open to either but we need some direction. If there is consensus towards merge just let me know and I'll do a deeper dive. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 09:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have found some strong sources, but sources such as e.g. WaPo discuss "vaginal douches or other feminine washes, wipes, powders and related menstrual products", J Sex Med discusses "feminine wipes, sprays, douches, and yeast creams", and Reprod Health discusses "intimate wash, vaginal douching, use of wipes and deodorants, pubic hair removal." So a merge seems particularly useful for this topic, because these various products and practices are discussed as a group in multiple sources. Beccaynr (talk) 11:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I can see your point of view. It was hard to find academic papers on just feminine wipes. I'm still open to seeing what others think and bring to that table but a merge would make sense to me if more sources come up. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 09:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on sources tending to discuss the products and practices as a group, the further development that could occur in this article seems potentially most helpful in the feminine hygiene article, which has broader encyclopedic content and could also be further developed with the broader-focused independent and reliable sources that have been found during this discussion. There are also:
Nan Lin, Ning Ding, Emily Meza-Wilson, et al, "Volatile organic compounds in feminine hygiene products sold in the US market: A survey of products and health risks" Environment International Volume 144, November 2020 ("We collected 79 commercially available FHPs, including washes, tampons, menstrual pads, wipes, sprays, powders and moisturizers, and analyzed their composition [...] Our data suggest that all tested FHPs contained some toxic VOCs, and that risks of using some products should be addressed").

A. Jenkins, D. Money & K. C. O’Doherty "Is the vaginal cleansing product industry causing harm to women?" Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy Volume 19, 2021 - Issue 3 (Editorial) (via WP Library/T&F) ("In the United States, for example, consumers spend over two billion dollars a year on douches, deodorant sprays, washes, personal wipes, and powders [...] There has been accumulating evidence to suggest that many vaginal cleansing products have adverse health effects. [...] more research on these products is urgently needed.")

A. L. Jenkins, S. E. Crann, D. M. Money & K. C. O’Doherty "“Clean and Fresh”: Understanding Women’s use of Vaginal Hygiene Products" Sex Roles 78, (2018) ("We explore Canadian women’s use of vaginal hygiene products including feminine washes, douches, sprays, deodorants, wipes, and powders. [...] Potential risks include bacterial vaginosis, pelvic inflammatory disease, and a higher susceptibility to sexually transmitted infections, among others. We believe that companies that advertise these products as beneficial for vaginal health and hygiene can be perceived as not just misinforming women but also profiting from products that are harmful.")

There otherwise currently appears to be one study about feminine wipes and one press release, so support for WP:GNG seems a bit weak for a standalone article. Beccaynr (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should the article be kept, or is merging a preferable option?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:HEY. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't believe I have to ask this but do we have any women in this discussion? I have not checked everyone in this discussion and there is no need for anyone to self identify if they don't want to. But I felt like this was something I should at least bring up. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 08:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think everyone is able to make an assessment of notability and whether or not a merge is appropriate for the encyclopedia, and we should be careful about unintentional implications related to personal characteristics and how this may impact !votes in a discussion. I will say that my hope is for the encyclopedia to be an accessible and educational resource, and I think if someone is directly familiar with women's health care, then the thematic elements in the sources that seem to favor a merge may seem more apparent - but this perspective is also available from the sources, and/or by knowing and working with women, and participants in this discussion are also entitled to disagree. Beccaynr (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:HEY scrapes through WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:44, 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 delete‎. Significant coverage has not yet manifested. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Humaira Kazi[edit]

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

Contested draftification with a single in-depth source (News18). Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Cricket, India, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. Not enough coverage exists currently for her, given that she hasn't played a single notable match yet. However coverage may well exist in the future when she starts playing matches. So currently fails WP:GNG, and not worth draftifying as will likely be over 6 months before sourcing begins to exist. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DON'T DELETE WPL is already a big tournament in women's cricket and she has already played 10 WPL matches in the inaugral edition. As on today, some information is avaialable from reliable sources, which is being gradually moved to her Wikipedia page. Kindly let the page stay. Thanks,Vikram Maingi (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of details have been added on this page and it is certainly worth retaining. Kindly review and share updates. Thanks,Vikram Maingi (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page can be expanded upon. Abstrakt (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~KEEP~~ Waiting for more inputs so that the discussion can be closed. Thanks,Vikram Maingi (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of these are valid reasons to keep an article. Zaathras (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My own BEFORE returned routine match reports and interviews, nothing approaching SIGCOV in SIRS. JoelleJay (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:TOOSOON and I would not oppose draftifying however it would probably be a long time before WP:RS appears. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Extra scrutiny of keep votes will be needed here, as there is off-wiki canvassing going on, per this tweet. Zaathras (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only two articles are on the page which would count to SPORTBASIC, and even then it's not SIGCOV to warrant a biography. SWinxy (talk) 20:34, 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 delete‎. The article may be restored if and when significant coverage appears. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ifeanyi David Nduka[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ifeanyi David Nduka. Now recreated because he has played a game, but still has no independent sources about him, which is the requirement (having played a game is no longer considered sufficient and has been removed from WP:NSPORTS quite a while ago). Fram (talk) 07:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Nigeria, and Russia. Fram (talk) 07:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: Article creator so no vote, I added a couple of links to articles to the career section. Geregen2 (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 15 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. Giant Snowman 19:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe weak keep After a look I feel there is something there about his situation in Russia, playing football for a young person. More news could be added. Just scrapes by on the Basic criteria for me. Govvy (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Article about sports visas, mentions the player but no info about them. Mostly interview	1. "“Four months ago we played for the championship of the region. Will Nigerians from Krasnodar-2 help out Galitsky?" [Would Nigerians from Krasnodar-2 save Galitsky?] (in Russian). Sport Express . April 1, 2022.
No SIGCOV	2. ^ "KubSU rector Mikhail Astapov: about university, Russian and world football" [KubSU rector Mikhail Astapov: about university, Russian and world football] (in Russian). VK press. April 7, 2022.
Primary, promo	3. ^ "KRASNODAR-2 SIGNED CONTRACTS WITH JONATHAN OKORONQUO AND DAVID NDUKA" (in Russian). FC Krasnodar . February 22, 2022.
No SIGCOV	4. ^ "FIFA adopts temporary employment and registration rules to address several issues in relation to war in Ukraine". FIFA. 7 March 2022.
Name mentioned in list	5. ^ "Krasnodar may be allowed to re-declare 3 Nigerians from Krasnodar-2" (in Russian). sports.ru. March 31, 2022.
Primary, promo	6. ^ "KRASNODAR CONCLUDED CONTRACTS WITH NDUKA, OKORONQUO AND OLUSEGUN" (in Russian). FC Krasnodar. June 14, 2022.
Primary	7. ^ "Zenit v Krasnodar game report". Russian Premier League. 13 May 2023.

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 09:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue: That seems over analytical! Btw, did you look at the Russian wiki page for him? Not much there either. Govvy (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a case of WP:TOOSOON as the article fails WP:GNG. The best source I could find is the Sport-Express piece already cited in the article which contains an interview with Krasnodar's club president. He gives a one-paragraph answer to the question of whether Nduka is ready to play for the club, which I don't think can be viewed as SIGCOV, and I'm not sure we can count a quote from Nduka's employer as independent, secondary coverage. Jogurney (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero SIGCOV in secondary independent RS. Quotes are always primary, and when they come from someone affiliated with the subject they are not independent, so the Sports-Express piece definitely does not count towards GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Govvy. Young player with ongoing career in fully pro Russian Premier League, which receives lots of media coverage. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 09:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - currently not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per source analysis by Timothy. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:29, 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 delete‎. Closing this early as there's been substantial community input with a snowball's chance in hell of any non-delete outcome. Consensus is this article is a WP:POVFORK of WP:Pedophilia#Society and culture. Some support for salting the page title, but am hoping that's unnecessary at this point. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Euryalus (talk) 07:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stigma of pedophilia[edit]

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

This a POV-fork of Pedophilia#Society and culture, written by the same (now-blocked) user as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor-attracted person (2nd nomination), and displaying the same civil POV-pushing of a fringe, pro-paedophile point of view based on the synthesis of loosely-related academic research. – Joe (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Sexuality and gender, and Social science. – Joe (talk) 07:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect - POVFORK created by a blocked SPA. Not a plausible-enough search term for a redirect. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 07:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this is a redundant fork of Pedophilia#Society and culture. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a mish-mash of various themes related to pedophilia, and effectively amounts to WP:SYNTH. It also seems a bit POV-forky over issues already covered in various other articles. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just add that I do think an article on this subject could be justified on notability grounds. I just don't think this is it, due to its one-sided POV synthesis. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems fine, I don't see the need for further explanation of this topic. Oaktree b (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork for the worst possible POV Dronebogus (talk) 11:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. The topic of this article is well-sourced, and has obvious notability within the literature. There exists a construct and subsequently a stigma of pedophilia (see my comments on Talk). While not fully divisible, the construct and stigma of pedophilia clearly interact with one another, and so they must both have their own notability. These multiple AfDs appear to be part of a systematic attack and opinion canvassing operation against the creator of the Minor-attracted person article, which unambiguously referred to the topic (acknowledging the considerable controversy surrounding it) rather than mobilizing it. Wikipedia is not censored, and is driven by notability and mentions of a topic in reliable sources.

~~I'd also like to suggest that some admin further up has a good look into what is happening at certain bulletin boards, and whether it violates existing policy. --86Sedan 09:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)~~ - (pro-pedophilia account blocked). ValarianB (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is a follow-up to the discussion that led to the creator's block at WP:ANI#Link to personal blog of notorious pedophile Tom O'Carroll. It's completely routine to review the wider editing of a user blocked for distorting content, for obvious reasons. – Joe (talk) 11:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I must agree with Sedan, I find the targeting of these pages and the banning of the creator quite disturbing. This weaponization of fear is the exact thing this article talks about. Legitimate topics being suppressed. --Pokelova (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons stated above. Casdmo (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. There is heaps of research about the social stigma of pedophilia and how it negatively affects child sexual abuse prevention and affected individuals mental health. Pedophilia has been described as "one of the most stigmatized human characteristics" (Maroño & Bartels, 2020). There is clearly enough information on the topic for there to be an article. Many researchers in relevant fields believe that while it's absolutely necessary to stigmatize the act of child sexual abuse, stigmatizing the attraction itself is counterproductive. Observer42436 (talk) 10:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC) - blocked for pro-pedophilia advocacy) ValarianB (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Hemiauchenia, this is better handled at Pedophilia#Society and culture. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOPAGE this aspect of pedophilia is better handled in the parent article. Breaking off 'stigma' to treat in isolation in a standalone article is intrinsically WP:POVFORKy. Bon courage (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with ActivelyDisinterested and Bon courage that it's better handled at the main article. DFlhb (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Wikipedia had a problem over a decade ago with now-long-banned editors working to soften pedophile-related articles, it is sad to see this advocacy creeping up again. any stigma attached to child-rape is deserved, it does not justify a separate article to champion its cause. ValarianB (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about stigma of child rape, Valarian, and I think deep down you know that. Intellectually you understand the distinction. It's giving performative. --Pokelova (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you are straying into the territory of the blocked SPAs. I'd advise caution. ValarianB (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between pedophilia and child rape is obvious to anyone with a dictionary. It would take incredible bad faith to construe that as advocacy of any kind, though I guess I wouldn't be surprised if that happened given how disgustingly this whole situation has played out. Well, if anything they certainly can't accuse me of being a SPA. --Pokelova (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the distinction is about as meaningful as choosing between being shot or stabbed. you are picking the wrong horse in this race. ValarianB (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What? Let me hear that again. The distinction between pedophilia and CSA is as meaningful as between being shot and stabbed? You can't seriously think it's right to equate the trauma of child rape victims to the ickiness of pedophilic desire itself. If you did, then how would you even be able to justify basic measures such as background checks for childminders? The pedophile is already a pedophile, so nothing can make the situation worse, according to you. I'm not here to defend the article, but your insulting language towards Pokelova should be withdrawn in light of the nonsensicality of your associated arguments. small jars tc 00:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As a WP:POVFORK. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly a WP:POVFORK with ulterior motives.Legitimus (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obvious POVFORK by someone who has an obvious POV. Curbon7 (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POVFORK. I'm sad that this was created. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks, walks, and quacks like a WP:POVFORK. Even if the motive behind creating it were pure as the driven snow, it is redundant with the article of broader scope, and having both around just makes maintenance more difficult. XOR'easter (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
strongest delete possible. literal pedophilic trolling. lettherebedarklight 晚安 03:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:POVFORK. Johnuniq (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POVFORK trash. Really hope we don't need to salt, but I'd support that if re-created. Nate • (chatter) 04:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all of the reasons laid out above. OgamD218 (talk) 10:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For ALL of the above reasons. Equine-man (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no difference here between this and stigma of copraphilia. No article there. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I must admit that this one is inherently WP:UNDUE. There's no way we could ever make anything good out of this article because the choice of topic has an unacceptable impicit premise. small jars tc 00:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looks like an AVALANCHE in here with only a single established editor !voting keep, who doesn't cite any policy and goes on a mini-polemic about the delete !voters (not counting the long-dormant account which appeared alongside the other SPAs which are now blocked). ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 00:19, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Council of Khalistan[edit]

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

Fail in WP:ORG. no secondery reliable sources Worldiswide (talk) 07:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Washington, D.C.. Shellwood (talk) 09:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Organisation appears to be a notable Sikh nationalist political organisation based in the United States. I have added some secondary sources to the article since this AfD. Jack4576 (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We need more Reliable, independent sources. that's not a inuff Worldiswide (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I Added some new reliable Secondary sources. This article should not be deleted, Council of Khalistan was very active during the Punjab insurgency, although it is still active but it doesn't get enough coverage, It played a significant role in Punjab insurgency and the existing Wikipedia articles "Jagjit Singh Chauhan" and "Gurmit Singh Aulakh" is also directly connected to it. Shubhdeep Sandhu (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the Council of Khalistan has played a significant role in this movement, as evident from its involvement during the Insurgency in Punjab. Furthermore, it has had a notable presence in international politics as well. For instance, it briefly became a member of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO), and the Khalistani movement's re-emergence in the political sphere has been reported in recent years. BoraVoro (talk) 06:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (barely): There is a lot of promo, mentions and spam refs in the article, but these two:

IS RS with SIGCOV >> 2. ^ Rajagopalan, Swarna (2014-03-21). Security and South Asia: Ideas, Institutions and Initiatives. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-80947-0.
IS RS with SIGCOV [55] >> 4. ^ Thomas, Jo (1984-06-14). "London Sikh Assumes Roe of Exile Chief". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2023-05-09.

Push the subject over the GNG line. // Timothy :: talk 19:20, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jaideep Saikia[edit]

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

Promotional article of a commentator, doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Sourced to either non-independent primary sources such as profiles and articles authored by him or to sources that mention the subject in a trivial capacity, not much more than a name drop him. WP:BEFORE search only brings up more of the same. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Terrorism, and Assam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The cited sources are announcements of upcoming lectures (WP:ROUTINE), self-published works or trivial mentions in the media. Lacks significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found a review of a book of which he was joint editor, but nothing else that could count towards notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:33, 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. ✗plicit 07:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Risingbd.com[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

None of the sources used provide in-depth coverage. Online-only news site with numerous vanity articles. Much of the content in the article cannot be verified or failed verification. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Internet, and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the cited sources either have no mention or only trivial mention of the subject. The sources in Bengali article aren't any better. Searches yield no significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being online-only is not a reason for deletion. If it has numerous vanity articles, that would affect its reputation, but not its notability. My own impression is that although it reprints press releases (vanity articles), it does so to no greater degree than many other Bangladeshi news outlets (Daily Sun, The Daily Observer, Banglanews24.com, Jagonews24.com, ...) And risingbd.com does real reporting too, for which its reporters get beaten up,[56] shot,[57] and punished by the government.[58] --Worldbruce (talk) 06:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some background is available from risingbd.com,[59] but there isn't significant coverage in independent reliable sources, only brief mentions of a change in editorship[60] and membership in various journalists' associations. Newspapers often have difficulty meeting WP:GNG, so essays Wikipedia:Notability (media) and Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) suggest other criteria for evaluating notability. Risingbd.com has garnered an independent award for reporting on corruption,[61] but it isn't a notable or well-known award. It is cited now and then by other newspapers and by academic works, but probably not enough to rise to the level of "regular and significant usage" or "authoritative or influential". --Worldbruce (talk) 06:45, 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. Noting that the "contested PROD" was WP:BLPPROD, not the standard one. ✗plicit 12:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Maroney[edit]

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

Contested prod after creation. Appears to fail WP:GNG; a WP:BEFORE search turned up no significant coverage of either him or his company. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Entertainment, and United States of America. AllyD (talk) 06:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find coverage of him, nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 06:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:31, 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Astros-Mariners rivalry[edit]

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

Just because two teams play in the same division does not make them "rivals". A couple headlines reading they "don't like each other" or fanblogs calling them "rivals" does not establish that they are indeed "rivals" to the point of having their own dedicated page. Instead, it's WP:FANCRUFT; there is no WP:LASTING impact from the situation on July 26, 2021, for instance. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astros–Braves rivalry for a similar discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Texas and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The closest thing that comes to a RS talking about a rivalry is the Seattle Times article and the context of that is within a singular season. Skipple ☎ 20:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and below analysis of all the sources currently in the article. The only source one that might pass WP:GNG is the WP:LOCAL Seattle Times article referenced above. Most either don’t even describe the teams as “rivals” or use the term once or twice in the way any two teams could be described as competitors. Frank Anchor 00:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis by User:Frank Anchor

Source assessment by User:Frank Anchor
Source	Comments
HOU vs. SEA	WP:ROUTINE list of head-to-head records N
More Mariners bad blood with Astros: Why benches cleared again	WP:LOCAL coverage (though not directly affiliated with either team). Coverage of a benches-clearing brawl between the two teams. Only mentions the term "rival" once in a routine description of the teams being from the same division. N
Rivalry renewal	WP:LOCAL coverage (though not directly affiliated with either team). Article suggests an "on-and-off" rivalry between the two teams but also recognizes the teams lack geographical proximity and "bad blood" generally found in a rivalry. N
Mariners and Astros don’t like each other. Now they’ll play for a spot in the ALCS	Local coverage (though not affiliated with either team). Probably the closest to passing WP:GNG for establishing a rivalry between the two clubs of any of the sources provided. While the source does not use the term "rivalry" or "rivals," it describes some recent history between the two teams. Probably a borderline pass of GNG, but not enough on its own. Y
Seattle Mariners Make History in Win Over Houston Astros on Saturday	Routine postgame coverage N
The AL West Is the Best Divisional Race in Baseball	Describes the divisional race in the AL West. Does not describe the Astros and Mariners as rivals. N
Astros Musings: The Biggest Rivals in 2017	One fan-blogger's prediction that a rivalry may develop between the two teams for the 2017 season. N
A brief history of the Mariners-Astros time	Non-independent article from a blog-site that calls itself "a Seattle Mariners community." Routine coverage of the two teams' series against each other which could be used to describe a series between any two teams. Describes "how good an Astros-Mariners rivalry could be good for baseball" but does nothing to establish a rivalry currently exists between the two teams. N
Astros lefty Brooks Raley suspended three games, manager Dusty Baker one	Routine coverage of discipline issued for a brawl. Does nothing to suggest a rivalry exists between the two teams. N
Benches clear in 9th, Servais tossed as Mariners beat Astros MLB Highlights	Youtube video. Routine highlights. N
Mariners Astros FIGHT/BEEF Explained	Youtube video. Describes a fight that happened in a game. Fights happen several times a season in MLB. That does not establish a rivalry. N
Social Media's Reaction to Monday's Mariners/Astros Benches-Clearing Incident	Reactions to an in-game fight. Coverage does not describe teams as "rivals" N
Seattle Mariners vs Houston Astros: ALDS Preview	Routine preview of a playoff series. Mentions "bad blood" exists between the two teams but does not make any effort to describe a rivalry between the two teams. N
Mariners Breakdown: ALDS reaction, what’s next, message to Astros	Local coverage (though not affiliated with either team). Post-playoff series report that uses the term "rivalry" in a routine way that could describe a series between any two teams as being a rivalry. N
'We’ve got to play a lot better': Astros being tested	Non-independent article posted by MLB. Does not describe the two teams as "rivals." N
Mariners 3, Astros 1: Houston's bats struggle in dropping series finale	Local coverage (though not affiliated with either team). Routine postgame report. N
"Mariners 7, Astros 8 Final Score	Non-independent routine box score N
Mariners 2, Astros 4 Final Score	Non-independent routine box score N
Astros 1, Mariners 0 Final Score	Non-independent routine box score N

Keep I found this article from MLB.com that perfectly sums up how both the Houston Astros & the Seattle Mariners are rivals. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage must be both independent and significant in order to pass WP:GNG and this particular article is neither. It lacks independence as it is published by MLB, and it lacks significance because it is a a single paragraph that describes a recent playoff series between the two teams, does not describe any animosity between the teams, and only uses the term "rivalry" in the title (likely as a buzzword to manufacture hype). Frank Anchor 12:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The spiciest rivalries in MLB right now, division by division". This reads as fan cruft. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Frank Anchor's source analysis and lack of independent coverage. Not every divisional rivalry needs a Wikipedia page. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think there's more potential here than some of the other cruftier rivalry articles, but this doesn't quite cut it as of yet. There's not a huge history between the teams, and as a result this is mostly just a description of games from 2021 and 2022. Try again in a few years. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hang on a Second Gentlemen, I’ve found two other articles outlining the rivalry. Regardless of the depth in history, it seems to be an upstart divisional rivalry. 1. [62]

2. [63] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:2E07:2D00:B1E7:A021:6677:B211 (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The WSJ page is paywalled but an article that has "most lopsided rivalry" in the title and talks about how much one team has obliterated another team during a single season is not WP:SIGCOV of a rivalry

(if anyone has more input of the full text, please add it to this discussion). The Sportskeeda page is routine coverage of players getting hit by pitches in games between the two teams. Players get hit by pitches all the time. "Bean-ball wars" in which players on both sides get hit by pitches and fights occur are somewhat common in MLB. That does not establish a rivalry.

Frank Anchor 13:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to view the WSJ article. It does not discuss a rivalry beyond a story about how the Astros beat the Mariners 16 out of 17 times in 2019. Not really a basis for a Wikipedia article about a notable rivalry. Rlendog (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Frank Anchor's source analysis (Thank you) could not find enough SIGCOV. Equine-man (talk) 18:00, 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 merge‎ to Tarbox Ramblers. ✗plicit 01:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tarbox[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, only WP:ROUTINE coverage Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Michael Tarbox~~ Tarbox Ramblers. Failed to find significant coverage for the individual, only trivial mention of him as part of the band or coverage of other people with the same name. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tutwakhamoe:, what are you suggesting here? Your redirect target is the same as the current article. Natg 19 (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have made a mistake, I meant redirect to Tarbox Ramblers. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 06:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think the merge is ok, seems to be more well-known for the musical group. Oaktree b (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to Tarbox Ramblers. Could add a separate section on solo works to include his album, but otherwise his career (and even the single WP:RS citation) is bound up with that group. Oblivy (talk) 05:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mege with Tarbox Ramblers. Subject is non-notable aside from the band, but some content could be included in the band article. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 18:15, 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 redirect‎ to Feed the Beast (Kim Petras album). — Amakuru (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Problématique (album)[edit]

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

Not really notable? Nothing that couldn't be simply a few sentences on the Kim Petras page. Theknine2 (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 19:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The half of the sources which actually discuss the project in any sort of depth are all restating the same story, and the other half make no mention of it. The most relevant info is already covered in Kim Petras#2020–present: Scrapped studio album and "Unholy"; a redirect there would make the most sense. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I don't object to deletion if consensus ends up leaning in that direction. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:UNRELEASED. There are several reliable sources about Petras' decision not to release the album constituting WP:SIGCOV. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ I think the WP:UNRELEASED criteria does not really apply, because the coverage seems to be about Kim Petras, not about the unreleased album, yet WP:UNRELEASED seems to require independent coverage. 128.6.36.94 (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Currently blocked. Strike comment? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that the IP editor's block only lasted for 72 hours so it should be lifted now. I don't know if that means their vote remains invalid or not. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or possibly Redirect to Kim Petras#2020–present: Scrapped studio album and "Unholy". I have gotten mixed up in this article before. First, WP:UNRELEASED has specific criteria requiring coverage of the album as a distinct entity that has some hope of being released or compiled someday. This one is just a scrapped project with no distinct tracklist, and a few rumored songs that will probably end up on other albums anyway. The title Problématique, despite being used in a lot of sources, was merely used to pre-hype a vague project idea before it got off the ground. Most of the sources used in this article are actually about Petras's general activities during that period, plus a little hype about the collab with Paris Hilton. Unlike well-known unreleased albums with a history and news coverage, such as Street King Immortal, this one was just an idea and not a distinct entity that deserves an article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for now (disclaimer: page creator). There are multiple independent reliable sources specifically covering the topic. Additionally, there are notable songs associated with this project ("Future Starts Now", "Coconuts"), so more could be added about those tracks. I would actually prefer to wait until more information is made public about her next studio album because then we'll have a better sense of which songs from this project might carry over. Some of this article's text could even be converted into a 'Background' section of her next album, assuming sources connect the dots. Funny how editors are using WP:UNRELEASED to justify both deleting and keeping this entry. I will concede, WP:UNRELEASED says: "This generally applies to more high-profile projects, and an album should not generally have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label." However, to me this is to prevent editors from creating new entries about rumored upcoming albums, not to disregard the possible notability of well-documented but scrapped projects. WP:UNRELEASED does say "An unreleased album may qualify for an article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it", after all. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think album is any more notable than Charli XCX's scrapped third studio album, which used to have a Wikipedia article but was deleted. --Damage Ensues (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your source assessment is saying what happened to a similar article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article did remind me of the former XCX World article, yeah. Not to mention that XCX World did contain more content, including a much longer list of scrapped songs. Theknine2 (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (continuing the sub-discussion above) - I consider the deletion consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unreleased third studio album (Charli XCX) to be a useful precedent for this one. In neither case was an album completed and neither got too far beyond pre-production. Regardless of the "unreleased" question, an album article here should still be about an album, not an amorphous project with a few possible song placements that never got off the ground. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The prose specifically refers to an 18-track album. Feed the Beast has been announced, so we may learn more about Problématique in the near future. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This will probably end up as "No Consensus" for a pretty good reason... lack of information on which to build a consensus. Media outlets say there are 18 songs but are suspiciously unable to provide their titles. It was set to be released in Summer 2022 but there was never a formal record company announcement of a distinct release date and then no such date was formally cancelled. Some reviewers bemoaned the album's demise but gave no information about any of the songs supposedly therein (except for the few that were leaked). I suspect that the whole story is over-hyped as an excuse for Petras's lack of material during the period. But Kim and the management have made the world believe that a whole album was completed then killed by vague villains. So other people suspect that there was really an album. Neither of us will get much further. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"except for the few that were leaked"? Uh, I'm guilty of listening to Problématique in its entirety quite a few times... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And yet we still don't have confirmed song titles nor confirmation that whatever leaked was part of an album that was confirmed to be released on a confirmed date then confirmed to have been cancelled. This is all a masterpiece of speculation. (Off-topic: Did you pay Kim Petras appropriate compensation for those songs you listened to?) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She said we could listen to the album, so I do! :) I see "Hit It from the Back", "Revelations", and "Sex Talk" will appear on Feed the Beast. I'm familiar with these tracks from Problématique. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 12:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Problématique situation reminds me of Britney Spears's "lost" album Original Doll, which was scrapped by her label and never had a proper release date or track listing beyond "Mona Lisa"; many Original Doll songs were eventually leaked. Original Doll has been often discussed both in the Britney fandom and the general media (I'd argue to a greater extent than Problématique), yet does not have its own article: Original Doll redirects to Blackout. I believe we could do something similar here, with Problématique redirecting to Feed the Beast rather than a section of the Kim Petras article. The fact that the Problématique songs "Coconuts", "Hit It from the Back", "Revelations", and "Sex Talk" all made it onto Feed the Beast makes me think that discussion of Problématique could be included in the Background section of the Feed the Beast article. Bizarre Bizarre^{Talk modern to me} 20:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per precedent set by the Charli XCX album, or redirect to Feed the Beast, since three tracks rumored to be on the album made it to Feed the Beast. While there are rumors that this album might be released after Feed the Beast, we can just recreate the article if it actually happens. Itsquietuptown ✉️📜 14:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are also rumors that the tracks from Problématique on Feed the Beast have been mixed differently. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Request: Since there's a chance this article might be deleted altogether, may I request to have the page redirected instead, in order to preserve the article history? I think the comments above suggest a redirect is more appropriate than outright page deletion, especially since at least some of the content could be used for Feed the Beast. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:15, 30 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 03:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Chong[edit]

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

This person does not satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV, even though he’s mentioned in articles dealing with companies with which he’s involved. By himself, there's not enough for a biographical article. In its current form it's largely a puff piece, with claims that the subject is visionary, etc, which I unsuccessfully tried to tone down. But even if all that were to be removed (again), there isn't any real notability. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only cited WP:RS that names him is the Rappler story. Though not mentioned in the WP page he did make the national news after being charged in an alleged methamphetamine trafficking scheme although he was subsequently cleared.[64] [65] The PhilStar article (#2) is pretty good for biography and involvement in esports and doesn't mention him being involved in content production. I just don't know enough about esports to say if he's notable for that. Oblivy (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to include contributions in the Lords Mobile and Clash Royale Mobile Game community, as he is really an icon in Esports Industry in the Philippines. akosiken (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability from RS coverage, repeated attempts to spam this article - see also Bernard Chong. Salt both. At best, redirect to Bren Esports - David Gerard (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How come it's a spam article, how can i discuss other companies he invested or even those movies or animations he produce? Those things are no longer Bren Esports related. akosiken (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One start would be to find reliable sources showing he is known for this other activity. Those sections of the article link to content that doesn't mention his name.

May I ask if you have a connection to the article subject? Others have mentioned WP:COI and your edit history shows you have recently only focused on this article and Bren Esports Oblivy (talk) 02:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not satisfy WP:NBIO. NPOV issues smell like a COI as well. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 14:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and salt all variants to prevent recreation. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while not completely relevant in this case (since this deals with an unrelated article), the primary contributor has also heavily edited another article which has been raised as a possible COI (and since been speedily deleted as WP:G11). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.147.67.216 (talk) 07:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per nom and possible COI issues. ParadaJulio (talk) 10:08, 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 03:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Walker (artist)[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. Did some artwork for a band. No WP:SIGCOV. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, England, and Australia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 07:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ARTIST. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ARTIST. LibStar (talk) 03:56, 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 03:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

St. Michael's College, Meegoda[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL, lacks any sources or references. Has been identified as such since September 2017 with no change. PROD notice was removed without any evidence that reliable secondary sources exist. Dan arndt (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Sri Lanka. Dan arndt (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Schools are not inherently notable per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. They have to pass notability, with multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and I'm not seeing that here, nor could I find any searching on Google. The "News & Events" part of the school's website has not been updated since 2015 so it may no longer be in operation. Indeed if you click on the "about" part of their website it appears to be about a school called "The Champion's School Texas" (apparently filler text since the headmaster listed there is "Johnathan Doe"?) so it's not even clear whether this place ever really existed. FOARP (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Did not manage to find anything other than passing mentions. The school does not seem to have received enough coverage for passing the notability guidelines Tutwakhamoe (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced and could not find any sources to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 01:41, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 03:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Maltas[edit]

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

Non-notable actor - film credits are minor/supporting roles far as I can tell. Media coverage reads like paid PR. KH-1 (talk) 02:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 02:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. Heart ^(talk) 02:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under G3. I'm pretty confident that this is—at least partially—a hoax. His roles are only found on IMDb, which is unreliable. Per IMDb, this guy played a vizier in Fetih 1453 (2012). Obviously super realistic that a 12 year-old plays a high ranking minister in a movie, right? Anyway, I still went through the end credits of the movie and, you know it, no one is credited as "vezier" and he's not mentioned in another role either. In Aile Arasında (2017) he played as the head of the neighbourhood, also an implausible role for his age. Sources in the article have multiple red flags that give away their true side (paid-for nonsense). I know for a fact that Sabah and Takvim (both a part of Turkuvaz Media Group) do promotional sources. Ref 6 from Timeturk is a "Kimdir?" source which are considered to be unreliable on the Turkish Wikipedia. ~Styyx^Talk? 13:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Styyx.--Kadı Message 08:55, 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 redirect‎ to Cycling at the 1992 Summer Olympics – Men's individual road race. ✗plicit 03:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fernand Gandaho[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOLYMPICS and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete upon research, the only thing I can find of him is some reference websites that briefly mention his one year at the Olympics, and one interview of him about him that isn't even about him cycling. Heart ^(talk) 02:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP needs more Africa content, even if short; WP:IAR Jack4576 (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Heartglow's search confirms WP:BIO is not met. Being African is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Benin at the 1992 Summer Olympics. I couldn't find sources to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His full name is Fernand Coffi Gandaho, perhaps something could be found with this more precise search? Kingsif (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cycling at the 1992 Summer Olympics – Men's individual road race or Benin at the 1992 Summer Olympics. Seacactus 13 (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Benin at the 1992 Summer Olympics. BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Single source in article is not SIGCOV, keep votes provide no sources. 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). No objection to Cycling at the 1992 Summer Olympics – Men's individual road race as target. // Timothy :: talk 21:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cycling at the 1992 Summer Olympics – Men's individual road race. Non-notable athlete only competed in the road race event. Paulpat99 (talk) 03:25, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blake D. Moret[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman/executive. Fails GNG. Mooonswimmer 01:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Georgia (U.S. state). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:45, 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 List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929). ✗plicit 03:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Thompson (wingback)[edit]

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

non-notable deceased former NFL player who played 1 game in 1921 for a franchise that only existed one season. unable to find sources on newspapers.com or Google. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929) or List of Cincinnati Celts players (no preference between the two) per nom. I am willing to reconsider if WP:SIGCOV is made available so please ping me. Frank Anchor 16:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929). Cbl62 (talk) 14:24, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 01:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Clarke (businessman)[edit]

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

I searched ["David Clarke" webjet] and could not find any WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Australia. AllyD (talk) 06:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: Such coverage as can be found places the subject relative to the firm he co-founded and chaired until 2017. There is a paywalled profile piece on the subject (Australian Financial Review (2005)) but that appears unlikely to establish individual notability. A redirect to Webjet could provide an alternative outcome. AllyD (talk) 06:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would a redirect cause confusion with David S. Clarke? LibStar (talk) 07:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, both people are in business, and a redirect would look weird with a hatnote to that other person on the target article. AllyD (talk) 11:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: based on the content of the actual AFR article, which goes into depth about David Clarke and is not an interview; SIGCOV is met and it is appropriate to keep this article. AllyD I'm surprised at your vote, given you weren't able to assess or evaluate the AFR article. Jack4576 (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AFR is an interview with the subject. // Timothy :: talk 00:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Interview, fails IS	1. "LATE STARTER". Australian Financial Review. 13 October 2005. Retrieved 15 May 2023.
Quote from subject, fails IS	2. ^ O'Sullivan, Matt (5 January 2010). "Webjet is just the ticket". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 15 May 2023.
Fails V, 404	3. ^ Odi, Teresa (20 January 2008). "Webjet chief's relief at missing out on Travel.com". The Australian. Retrieved 4 May 2012.[dead link]

BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV. Keep vote failed to provide any sources. 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 00:58, 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 keep‎. ✗plicit 01:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Seyfried[edit]

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

I'm unable to find sources to meet non-trivial coverage from WP:SPORTBASIC. The closest I could find was two paragraphs in a book. The overwhelming majority of book sources merely include his name, so no notability conferred from them. Newspapers.com shows a ton of trivial routine sports coverage, which is fine for facts but not for notability, per NSPORTS. SWinxy (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Baseball. SWinxy (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. I'm pretty deletionist but some of these nominations are getting ridiculous. I'm seeing plenty of quality sources without even digging particularly hard. I found a feature piece that I'm working on finding a way to mesh in the article on top of all the other sourcing out there. Wizardman 02:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What feature were you able to find? SWinxy (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The last ref I just added is a half-page feature piece so that more that solves any potential issues. Wizardman 02:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Strong Keep I have since added more than enough. Wizardman 02:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wizardman's sources. Spanneraol (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm pretty deletionist too. Here's a paragraph from a book called Baseball in Long Beach, here's another from a different book with the same title, and some articles that provide more than just rotm game coverage.[66][67][68] Altogether, it should cross the line for notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per GNG. Rlendog (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Clear pass of GNG. Frank Anchor 18:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Brief career? True, but if you're a good enough pitcher to make a MLB start, the odds are pretty likely you've generated enough coverage to meet GNG. Based on the sources from Wizardman and Muboshgu, that seems like the case here. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wizardman, passes GNG. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Wizardman and Muboshgu. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Wizardman and WP:HEY. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:45, 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 01:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Centers and institutes of Washington University in St. Louis[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which is full of external links mostly unreferenced. Only 6 of the almost 40 entries have articles. SWinxy (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Missouri. SWinxy (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Those six institutes that do have articles are referenced in the parent article Washington University in St. Louis anyhow. Ajf773 (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Duplication of information already covered in Washington University in St. Louis. — Maile (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 00:52, 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. ✗plicit 01:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shilpa Bala[edit]

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

Appeared in minor roles in a few films. Citations mainly cover her marriage and have no independent coverage outside this topic. Fails NACTOR and GNG. The language used to write the article gives the impression that this is a likely attempt to promote the subject. Thesixserra (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Thesixserra (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thesixserra Shilpa bala is debutant award winner in her film carrier. Yes, you're right she is not very known for for her films as she is heroine in 3 films only but her contributions to tv shows are notable. As she hosted many famous shows, some of her shows and programs are now updated in her filmography now. Jigar1984 (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find any sources that says she is a winner of Film Critics Award. Even if had she won, it is not a major award. She has appeared in four films. All four in some minor roles. Fails NACTOR.

Now let's analyse the sources to verify whether she meets GNG. One of them is just a general routine coverage about Big Boss. She has been mentioned there. Some other sources are about her marriage and wedding anniversary. There is also a source about list of Film Critics Award Winners and her name is not mentioned anywhere. There is also a source from Filmibeat. Filmibeat is blacklisted in wikipedia. So she fails GNG as well. Thesixserra (talk) 03:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Being a celebrity by itself could be sufficient to have a Wikipedia article so coverage of Shilpa's wedding, birth of her child etc may count towards GNG/WP:NBASIC if said coverage is in reliable and independent sources. Shilpa has a lot of photographic coverage but many of those I've looked at seem to be self-publicity. Here's one source [69] that appears to be discussing her but the Google translation to English doesn't make a great deal of sense. Shilpa's certainly not publicity shy and seems well known in Kollywood circles. Undecided at the mo but will monitor to see what other contributors turn up.

As an aside, it would be of benefit to put up English translations of the Malayalam language headings in the references. Rupples (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jigar1984: I would really love to know which 3 films do you consider her to have been the heroine. Her filmography mentions 4 films, but I do not even recall her roles in Aagathan or Casanovva. Jupitus Smart 13:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial coverage or celebrity fluff articles. Not showing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be celebrity gossip/tabloid coverage and nothing real, per others. Zaathras (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Off-wiki canvassing for tis article. here. Zaathras (talk) 14:29, 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. ✗plicit 01:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I Heart Movies[edit]

(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 06:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to GMA Network (company)#I Heart Movies: per nom. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC) Keep Founded sources for the article: [70] [71]. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NTV and WP:GNG with sources presented by SeanJ. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to GMA Network. Both the existing sources and the articles listed above read quite like promotional pieces, especially with links to the channel itself at the end of the reportings. Other news articles that I found are pretty similar in tones as the ones above. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:NTV with reliable sources indicated by ThisIsSeanJ, as well as the ones in the article. 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) 01:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it's sourced well and deletion isn't being asked for. Nate • (chatter) 04:26, 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 keep‎. BusterD (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hutti Gold Mines Limited[edit]

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

Just advert. No reliable source, no notability. LusikSnusik (talk) 11:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage (multiple articles in The Hindu) seems to be enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep- This is Defiantly not an advert, it is well written & well sourced. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 23:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Doesn’t read like an advertisement at all, sources exist and support notability. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:13, 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 merge‎ to Landmark Group. A clear majority of editors found the available sources to fall short of establishing independent notability for the article subject, with merge beating deletion in terms of support. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Viva Supermarket[edit]

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

Fails NCOMPANY. ~~Poor coverage~~, sources I found online are either sponsored or contain mere trivial mentions of this company. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 00:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Arab Emirates. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 00:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable company doesn't meet WP:GNG. A story as old as time. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the refused A7, a 77-outlet operation and the first retail discounter in the United Arab Emirates, national newspaper and other coverage now added to the article clearly passes WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The parent company, Landmark Group, may be notable, but it doesn’t mean its subsidiaries are too. Moreover, the source you added from Gulf News [72] looks to be sponsored content. The third source, from TimeOut Dubai [73], fails ORGCRIT as “store opening” type media coverages are generally trivial. Lastly, both Khaleej Times articles [74][75] are interviews, which are not independent of the subject. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 13:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are incorrect. ~~There is no evidence the Gulf News story is sponsored content.~~ TimeOut does not fail ORGCRIT, I'm not sure what part of that policy you are citing that 'store opening type media coverage is generally trivial'. Sources 3 and 4 are not interviews, but contain quotes - a normal practice for news reporting. There are still three WP:RS pieces here, passing WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A line on WP:Notability (organizations and companies#Examples of trivial coverage reads “of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops”. The TimeOut article isn’t exactly in-depth and only provides basic information about the opening of Viva stores in the UAE. Sources 3 and 4 do look to be Q&A interviews. Source 3 consists of various paraphrases and quotes from Landmark Group and Viva supermarket CEOs. Source 4, too, quotes various statistical information from the Landmark Group CEO. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 12:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the news coverage of the chain's inception and coverage of its expansion shows that there is coverage to meet WP:GNG and I disagree that this type of coverage constitutes routine coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ask yourself this: If not for Landmark Group, would Viva Supermarket have received the coverage it did? And would it be notable independently? Sources [76][77][78] focus more on Landmark Group than Viva Supermarket. Viva Supermarket fails ORGIN as its notability relies too heavily on Landmark Group. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 12:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-read the sources replacing "Landmark" with "Petrified Gargoyles" and find that the articles are still about Viva. These reliable sources have taken note of the launch of Viva by Landmark Group. Your argument is basically that notability is being inherited from Landmark Group, but those articles have Viva as the primary topic and are not just incidental coverage in some overall coverage about Landmark Group. -- Whpq (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Landmark Group. Due to WP:PROMOTION. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What promotion? Redirect would only make sense if the entire article needed WP:TNT. -- Whpq (talk) 11:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems like the best option. Trivial mentions outside of the parent company. Oaktree b (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, even a cursory glance will confirm the sources are focused on Viva Supermarket and its growth in operations and not Landmark. As the largest discount retailer in the UAE, with several RS sources confirming this, there is notability here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Landmark Group. I am not seeing the sources here as serving as a basis for keeping this as a freestanding article, but neither am I seeing the case for removing the information here from the encyclopedia altogether if it can be merged into another article. BD2412 T 03:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the article is promotional and the news coverage is mostly announcements of store openings. Merging with the article on the corporate parent is the best editorial choice at this time to fix the promotional issues. No objection to un-merging if there are more detailed references (possibly in Arabic) found by others. Walt Yoder (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. While the promotional angle can be addressed with editing, the sourcing in my opinion fall short of warranting a standalone article. There is verifiable content so I think merge is superior to redirect here. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:22, 31 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 Consensus against deletion. There is a consensus that deletion of the individual article is not appropriate here, but no consensus between keep, merge and redirect. A discussion that considers all the stations on the line as a set seems more likely to gain consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

Midlunga railway station[edit]

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

The arcticle Midlunga railway station is nominated For Deletion because of Violating The Wikipedia Notability Guideline WP:GNG. There is No information Indicating that the subject of this article in notable in any way, there are also only 2 sources for it one which is completely unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulGamerBoy360 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've fixed the formatting of the nomination and included it on the AfD log for 30 April as it had not previously been listed. Thryduulf (talk) 08:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, every other station on the line has its own article so common sense to me is that this one is kept for consistency and navigational purposes (via coordinates and adjacent stations templates). Garuda3 (talk) 08:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF. Timothytyy (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Garuda3. 03:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homatpour (talk • contribs) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of the two keep-voters responded to the nomination statement about the failing of GNG; I did research and only found two mediumly significant coverage about the subject. As Garuda3's statement is WP:OTHERSTUFF, the two keep-voters' votes are invalid. Timothytyy (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“two mediumly significant coverage” sounds to me like a GNG pass. Garuda3 (talk) 08:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep there's this [79] about a sign mixup, seems to be a RS. not the greatest, but seems ok. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the sourcing is pretty bad, it still exists, so WP:V is satisfied. The main reason I'm voting to keep is that I agree with Garuda that deleting random stations in the middle of lines while disregarding the other stations creates significant navigational issues that creates more problems than it solves. If the other stations on the line are notable, then this station should also be kept regardless of GNG passing for navigational/consistency purposes. And if most of the stations on the line fail GNG, then the nomination should deal with all of them en masse. Jumpytoo Talk 23:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should start a N discussion if you believe it should be kept because of "navigational purposes". I encountered similar situations: un-redirecting stations but then got redirected again. So yeah, wish this article good luck. Timothytyy (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Timothytyy himself has said he has found two SIGCOV articles regarding the subject. This gives rise to a presumption of notability under GNG. Jack4576 (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No the reason I said "mediumly" because they aren't techincally talking about the subject, the articles are here: 1 (the one Oaktree b provided), 2. Please comment on these sources, Jumpytoo and Jack4576. Timothytyy (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is not the main focus of those articles but the mentions are sufficient enough to be demonstrative of notability to Wikipedians in the local area Jack4576 (talk) 08:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The second source is definitely not SIGCOV, as it is only mentioned once in the whole article! According to GNG, SIGCOV is more than a trivial mention. Also for source 1 it is only the sign that has the name of the subject, not providing SIGCOV for it. Timothytyy (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SIGCOV generates a presumption as to notability, it is not a requirement for notability.

I agree SIGCOV may have not been met here. Still think it is notable though for reasons stated by others in this thread. Jack4576 (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're misinterpreting WP:SIGCOV. It's true that it only creates a presumption of notability, but only if a topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Because this article doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV and thus there isn't a presumption of notability, I am voting Delete. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 09:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also fine with Redirect in this situation, as that seems to be where the votes are going. The RfC on train station notability makes it pretty clear that train stations must meet WP:GNG, although it appears that some editors don't accept that. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above. Available sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NTRAINSTATION is explicit that GNG must be met. A news story that a sign for one station was replaced with one for Midlunga fails SIGCOV and fails NOTNEWS, and a passing mention of a crash that "happened near Midlung station" is the very definition of "trivial". JoelleJay (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is also fine. JoelleJay (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Outer Harbor railway line. No SIGCOV, one very trivial mention and an article about a sign mixup. "Navigational purposes" is a very weak argument for keeping; we don't need 15 stubs about stations along one suburban Metro line when one table in the main article would serve the purpose just as well. Some of the stations look notable, but the others, including this one, are definitely better off redirected. AryKun (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving some articles and deleting others would leave Wikipedia in a inconsistent state. You say it’s a “very weak argument for keeping” but I don’t see any reason for deleting this article put forward by yourself. Garuda3 (talk) 08:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Their redirect reason is WP:DEL-REASON #8. Your reason to keep has no basis in policy or guidelines... JoelleJay (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Wikipedia generally has a general practice in relation to AfDs that substantive stations on metropolitan suburban railway systems (and I'm not talking about "halts" without platforms, or stations that temporarily existed for a time etc., I'm talking about regular stations with regular services) can have their own article, because putting the information together all on the line page would take up too much room. In Australia, every single suburban station within a capital city and which is served by suburban trains has its own article and the consensus has been to keep them all, even though some have less information than others. There is a notability essay on this topic: Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations). This is not just "other stuff exists" and something that ignores notability and sources, the fact is that there are substantial offline sources available about the history of railway lines and stations, but a lot of them are found offilne in public libraries, State archives and railway-specific publications (like Australian Railway History). I don't live in SA so I wouldn't be able to access those types of materials, but they do exist. This AfD should not try to set some sort of precedent for deleting an article (and then use that precedent to delete other ones) unless the nominator can show that those offline information sources have been reviewed and can positively show that no such information on this particular station exists. I think the point raised by other users about navigation is also important - other users have set up navigation boxes that include the stations, and it would require significant work to redo them all with some merged and some non-merged articles. It takes time to put a well sourced article together on a place like this due to the difficulty of finding sources - so give people the benefit of the doubt and don't merge this. Deus et lex (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - there is a history of the Port Adelaide line here [80] - I can't see the book to tell if it includes material on Midlunga or not. At 112 pages long, the book is likely to include information on stations. Deus et lex (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was a very well-attended RfC on train station notability that produced a strong consensus that railway lines must meet GNG, overriding any precedent of inherent or presumptive notability from earlier practices. JoelleJay (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stations, not lines, but otherwise your comment is correct (as the one who started the RfC in question). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The RfC was in 2019, not last year. I will say that despite the RfC, the practice in AfDs has consistently been to keep pages even where there has been limited information. The practice is different for halts or platformless stations, but this is not one, it has a regular suburban service. You haven't addressed my comment (which is also noted in the page I linked above) that there are extensive offline sources about railway stations, including those in Australia, I've already suggested one book on the line itself that should include some information on this particular station (at 112 pages long the book would need to - I don't have access to it so I can't check). There are also likely to be newspaper sources (available in the State Library of South Australia where I do not live, so I can't check). I've included information on a petition about the platforms and information on when they appeared in the suburban map and timetable in the 1950s. Deus et lex (talk) 08:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive_76#Notability of train stations. Don't call me a liar without doing your homework. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 11:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - even if it was last year, my other points still stand. Deus et lex (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are now 8 sources in the article - with that having been done, WP:GNG should now be met, so there shouldn't be a notability issue here. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 21:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
8 sources that do not provide more than a passing mention does not equal GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Outer Harbor railway line. There is a clear lacking of SIGCOV, as only barebones information is apparently available about this station. Redirecting would still be preferable to deletion, however. The "you can't delete/merge/redirect one station without assessing them all at once" is a nonsense argument explicitly overruled by the RfC from last year, so I'm really getting tired of people trotting it out as an excuse to keep everything. If you can't make an argument to keep this station, ignoring anything about all others, then you haven't made a valid argument for retention. The community has made its viewpoints clear at a well-attended RfC which cannot be overruled by a few editors in one AfD. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it's not a "nonsense" argument, as a number of users have said already here, there are clear and good reasons for retaining the page, absent someone making it clear there aren't offline sources available to justify its notability. Wikipedia permits stub pages that are not filled out while sources can be found, of which this is one. Deus et lex (talk) 08:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  It's the job of the people voting keep to show that there are some sources that help the article meet GNG: you cannot expect people to go to Australia and check every book on the history of railways before voting delete. This is a stub page that could be merged into Outer Harbor railway line with zero issue, because there is nothing significant about it other than the fact that it exists in said place. AryKun (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  This is a recurring theme when a train station ends up at AfD: "Oh, you want to delete this? Prove there's a 0% chance there's any sources in the entire globe or else you can't delete it". The goal is to make it impossible to ever delete anything. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge limited sourced basic info into Outer Harbor railway line. Fails GNG for notability but their looks to be enough info for a merge into the line article. Looking at sources in the article and above, they are mentions, nothing that meets SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Even if two sources are found can squeek by GNG, this does not mean there must be an article and in this case the content is much better covered in the target article. // Timothy :: talk 05:32, 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 no consensus‎. The delete !votes were more firmly rooted in policy, but strongest current in the discussion was that a combination of Western bias and a lack of accessible articles from the early digital age prevented proper demonstration of notability. While I accord such arguments less weight, a no consensus close is still the most accurate description of the discussion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Siripong Siripool[edit]

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

PROD objected, reason was there were some achievements. However the achievements does not even pass NBAD; fails GNG and BASIC too. No coverage about him found. Timothytyy (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Thailand. Timothytyy (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep medalist at the top continental events such as Asian Games, Asian Cup and Southeast Asian Games. zoglophie 04:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pass NBAD: 1991 Thailand Open. See also interwiki. He is also well-known as Thai national team coach. Stvbastian (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Thai page on him seemed promising, and then I clicked on a reference and it was just a picture of Xi Jinping?? Another source is an announcement that Siripong was hired as a coach of... something... Google translates the lead as "The Thai chicken transport army calls Siripong Siriphul, a former national team, as a coach". The rest of the refs from the Thai page are either dead or routine passing mentions. My own search also yielded mostly quotes from him, but I did find an article announcing that he was switching political parties (or as Google says: "The political party transfer festival of political people is still not over easily"). It's not SIGCOV, and seems to have been released by the Royal Thai Army so wouldn't be independent(?), but it might indicate there are other sources in a non-sport context. Regardless, the subject's achievements hold zero weight and arguments based on them must be dismissed; the article should only be kept if GNG is demonstrated. JoelleJay (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your research, would you suggest draftifying it? Timothytyy (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The first link mentioned is bad 404 handling by the Thai Post website, and the second is a hilarious example of how bad Google Translate can be with Thai headlines. It's about him being brought on as coach for the national badminton team. (ขนไก่, which means 'chicken feathers', is headlinese for 'badminton'. The word for 'feather' is also a homonym for 'carry' - that's how Google Translate messed it up as 'chicken transport'. And ทัพ 'army' is headlinese for 'national team'.) The third one has nothing to do with the army. กอง บก. is the website's ‘editorial team'. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Lol! Thank you for the clarifications! Have you been able to find any SIGCOV of him in Thai sources? JoelleJay (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Google translates the lead as "The Thai chicken transport army calls Siripong Siriphul, a former national team, as a coach" – That's my new favorite sports team :) BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG can't find any significant coverage.

1keyhole (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Florentyna (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I am personally convinced that this person would meet GNG if there was more internet reporting on badminton in Thailand in the early 90s... the argument I present is that the Western bias in sourcing and achievement requirements is probably at play and we should at least revisit those past discussion proposals of allowing more wiggle room for non-Western and historic subjects in some areas. Kingsif (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given his achievements, he must have had ranking atleast under top 15 at that time. But that sadly doesn't count as notable due to guidelines like those. zoglophie 09:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif, in addition to the topic meeting GNG, NSPORT also requires that a reliable source containing secondary independent SIGCOV must be cited in the article to avoid deletion, regardless of sourcing difficulties (and in my experience this has actually prevented proportionally far more bios on low-level contemporary Western athletes from being made/retained than it has excluded genuinely high-level non-Western/historic competitors). JoelleJay (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has been my understanding that AfD is to decide if an article can meet notability requirements. NSPORT wants those sources in the article, AfD decides if it is possible that such sources could be put in the article, not that they must be before the discussion is decided. Of course, that isn't to say it is possible if sources are theoretical but hard to find; my !vote is not based on the restrictions being too restrictive, but I do think those discussions should be revisited. Anyway, there seems to be more enlightenment with sources further up, so I will leave it to those who can read Thai. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The intention of the NSPORT restriction and its implementation at AfD is that articles that do not contain at least one source of SIGCOV should be/are deleted. Any presumption of GNG based on sports accomplishments only comes into play once that requirement is satisfied. Draftification would be a better alternative, to allow editors to find Thai sources if they do exist. JoelleJay (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or delete. I was not able to find SIGCOV searching his name in Thai, however, my search was limited to Thai sports news and since it looks like he may also be involved in politics draftification could provide time for others to track down sources in that context. JoelleJay (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Siam Sport article clearly a SIGCOV. The article title "Thai badminton team called Siripong to lead the team to compete in the Asian Championships". The article also said that he won 4 men's doubles title in the Thailand national championships, and also 8 consecutive times in the mixed doubles. In the Thai Daily News, Siripong Siripool as the subject of the article. Stvbastian (talk) 07:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hiring announcements like the first link are considered ROUTINE for NSPORT (plus it only has barely more than a sentence on him), and the second link is almost exclusively quoting/restating what he has said (not independent). No one has produced any new sources to assess, and what we have so far does not clear the bar for the required sourcing at NSPORT. JoelleJay (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, because badminton is a fairly major sport in Thailand and a national coach would meet GNG easily if he were appointed in the internet age. Explicitly not arguing for notability per NSPORTS. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What notability guideline are you arguing? IAR? JoelleJay (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Silver at the Asian Games already fulfills WP:NATH. The article definitely needs more improvement tho. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tutwakhamoe, NATH requires athlete subjects to meet GNG and to have at least one SIGCOV SIRS cited in the article. Without that he cannot meet NATH. JoelleJay (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific discussion of whether the subject does or does not pass GNG, and noting sources which may help with this, would be helpful. While the "keep" arguments are currently at a strong numerical majority, none address the assertion in the nomination that the subject does not pass GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as per Seraphimblade's relist 8 days ago. No comments since.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and more importantly WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, which gives us no discretion to keep when no significant coverage can be found. BilledMammal (talk) 04:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Asian Games medalist. This likely indicates sources (likely in Thai) exist. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sportsfan 1234, I am very surprised you would make this argument given you know about the requirement that a SIGCOV source must be cited in the article for the subject to meet NATH, and that meeting any sport-specific criterion is not sufficient at AfD if no SIGCOV sources have been identified. JoelleJay (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with only two short articles being brought up here. WP:SOURCESEXIST. SWinxy (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails the bare minimum guideline for sports figures found in WP:SPORTBASIC #5 Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. This is clearly failed and nobody arguing for notability has managed to find even one source to take this past that first hurdle. There was a lengthy discussion here which many Wikipedians participated in and the consensus was clear that we should not have articles that do not comply with this bare minimum criterion. I understand the arguments from those saying that he probably did have some coverage but, ultimately, that is pure guesswork and, without concrete proof, we shouldn't have an article. Deleting this article means that information is still retained at places like Badminton at the 1998 Asian Games – Men's doubles and Badminton at the 1992 Summer Olympics – Men's doubles so we lose little other than his date of birth and his infobox. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. None of the sources in the article have IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed nothing that the BEFOREs the keep votes above showed no sources with SIGCOV. Database results and routine stories are not enough to support a BLP. 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 18:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Kingsif. KatoKungLee (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's always hard to find articles related to athletes from last century, especially in countries where we have no online archives available. But the Daily News relating to his coaching meets SPORTCRIT. Looking at what else can be found, there's also this. Nfitz (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
??? The only coverage of Siripong in the Daily News article is "Coach Tong" Siripong Siriphul, badminton coach Badminton Association of Thailand under the royal patronage Mentioned [...] Coach Tong said [...] The other link is the one discussed extensively above. SPORTCRIT is definitely not met... JoelleJay (talk) 19:22, 30 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) 20:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Filament Games[edit]

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

Educational game developer that fails WP:CORPDEPTH, with no evidence of significant coverage anywhere. It's entirely possible one of their games could be notable, but that is not inherited by the company. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Education. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of their games are notable, and there's lack of coverage of their company. --Masem (t) 15:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment found some sources. [81], [82], [83], [84] Timur9008 (talk) 18:07, April 29, 2023 (UTC)

Those are quite good. However, to quote WP:GNG, "multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Therefore I am not 100% sold on withdrawing the AfD unless something else significant pops up, as three of those are from the same newspaper, so essentially there are only a couple so far. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I got this hit in the NY Times, but I think it talks more about the founder [85] and it's paywalled so I can't see what it says. Oaktree b (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's almost entirely about their games, not the studio itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it goes into the studio's products, that could be helpful. Masem (t) 02:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - scratches the surface of notability per given sources and my own searches. Merko (talk) 01:31, 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.