Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Mysteries with Jeff Corwin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Apart from trivial mentions regarding the show's Emmy wins, there are only only a few WP:RSes: [1], [2], and [3] were written around the time of the show's release, and focus more on the Georgia Aquarium than the show. [4] and [5] are pretty trivial. [6] focuses on the subject of the particular episode (sea lions), rather than the show itself. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Ashby, Emily (2019-09-20). "Parents' Guide to Ocean Mysteries. By Emily Ashby, Common Sense Media Reviewer". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.

      The review notes: "Corwin brings his passion for animals and the environment to this exciting series that promotes conservation through a better understanding of individual marine species. ... Although the show also touches on heavier topics like scientific research and how environmental degradation affects the species they study, it's designed to maintain even young kids' attention, relating an animal's size or weight to familiar objects like cars and giving definitions for terms that aren't familiar. If you're looking to learn something new as a family, Ocean Mysteries is a great place to start, and it's sure to inspire a new respect for the natural world and a new appreciation for conservationists' efforts to protect it."

    2. "Ocean Mysteries with Jeff Corwin: Season 1". The Dove Foundation. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.

      The review notes: "“Ocean Mysteries” is a great learning experience. Jeff talks about sea turtles of the present or those from millions of years ago. He is very knowledgeable about the creatures presented in each episode. He will keep you interested in the research, capture, release and healing of some of the oceans’ endangered species."

    3. Ruggieri, Melissa (2011-09-02). "Georgia Aquarium star of new 'Ocean Mysteries' series". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.

      The article notes: "Corwin, a longtime TV host and animal conservationist, is spearheading “Ocean Mysteries with Jeff Corwin,” a weekly 26-episode show that debuts Saturday morning on ABC. The show, part of “Litton's Weekend Adventure” programming shown nationwide, is directly affiliated with Georgia Aquarium; each episode is either being shot at the downtown Atlanta marine emporium or features experts from the venue. The idea for the show germinated about a year ago, when Georgia Aquarium and Litton Entertainment decided to create a unique series focused on sea creatures. ... Saturday’s debut episode follows ... The eight episodes completed so far include a journey to the coast of Mexico to extract blood from wild whale sharks ..."

    4. Chun, Gary C.W. (2013-06-04). "Animal instinct". Honolulu Star-Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.

      The article notes: "The conservationist and television host was here to shoot three episodes for the third season of "Ocean Mysteries with Jeff Corwin," which airs Saturday mornings on ABC. ... Corwin and the "Ocean Mysteries" crew travel the world's oceans in search of interesting stories that not only have a bit of adventure, but also convey a message about the importance of ocean research. ... "Ocean Mysteries," made in conjunction with the Georgia Aquarium in Atlanta, is Corwin's first foray into broadcast TV. ... Hawaii was first featured on "Ocean Mysteries" in 2011, when Corwin visited the islands to spotlight manta rays and Hawaiian monk seals."

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

    Cunard (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concede that the sources you've provided are reliable, but that doesn't end the analysis. Sources need to be reliable and establish notability, which requires significant coverage. I've already explained why I don't find source #3 to be SIGCOV of the show, rather than promotional/routine coverage of Jeff Corwin and the Georgia Aquarium. As for sources 1 and 2, while Common Sense Media is an RS for reviews per WP:RSPSS, the review isn't significant; it's one paragraph long and doesn't critically analyze the show.. Same with the Dove Foundation review. The Honolulu Star-Advertiser article likewise reads as a promo for the show (notwithstanding that it's from an independent source). voorts (talk/contributions) 21:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking any real significance. All coverage is routine and/or promotional in nature. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Weekend Adventure#Programming, or Jeff Corwin#Television On purpose it's designed to do nothing more than comply with educational programming requirements, nothing more than that. There's not much you can do to expand the article, and winning a Daytime Emmy Award is completely different from the primetime version most know. Nate (chatter) 01:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is inaccurate to say that the Common Sense Media source is "one paragraph long and doesn't critically analyze the show". The review extensively discusses and analyzes the television show through its various sections:
    1. "Educational Value" (59 words)
    2. "Positive Messages" (35 words)
    3. "Positive Role Models" (49 words)
    4. Products & Purchases (15 words)
    5. "Parents Need to Know" (94 words)
    6. "What's the Story" (86 words)
    7. "Is It Any Good" (153 words)
    In total, the review provides 491 words of coverage about the subject and contains lots of critical analysis. This clearly is significant coverage of the show. The Dove Foundation review provides 188 words of coverage about the subject, which is also significant coverage. These two sources by themselves are sufficient for Ocean Mysteries with Jeff Corwin to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. It is inaccurate to dismiss television show reviews in reliable sources as being "routine" or "promotional".

    The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the Honolulu Star-Advertiser articles are independent of the subject and provide significant coverage. Sources are not disqualified from establishing notability just because they present a positive view of the subject.

    It is inaccurate to say that "There's not much you can do to expand the article". The article can be substantially expanded through the extensive coverage in the sources I provided.

    Cunard (talk) 06:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep based on what has been found online. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Cunard's sources, which are sufficient to meet the GNG. matt91486 (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: we should be wary of thinking that the bar for SIGCOV is higher than it is: WP:SIGCOV reads significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The sources raised by User:Cunard clearly give more than a trivial mention, and so suffice to meet GNG. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the sources brought to light by this process. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as passing GNG, per Cunard above. Carrite (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Pacitti[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSINGER; PROD removed.Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure what the issue is, I echo everyone else who's found SIGCOV. Oaktree b (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This about her "disqualification" [10] among others was the first I pulled up. Oaktree b (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sources 1 and 3 given by Alvaldi provide significant, independent coverage from reliable sources, therefore GNG is met. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Alvaldi. Please WP:BEFORE Jack4576 (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're on the [11] cusp of being banned from AFD, so I'd save the lecturing, champ. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Lecturing" or not, he has a point: this is something like your fifteenth AfD nomination in the past two weeks, all on American Idol contestants, for which WP:SIGCOV exists and is easily findable. This nomination is particularly confusing, as the whole reason she left American Idol was because of her past in the music industry and the "ton of press" she received for it before Idol. I'm not sure how you can do research and not encounter this fact, as it was heavily reported. Furthermore, all of these nominations seem to hinge on successive misinterpretations (that you have admitted) of WP:NSINGER. It really looks like you've just gone down the list of contestants and carpet-bombed AfDs -- and later redirects, when those AfDs stopped going your way. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She's had songs on numerous high profile film soundtracks. --Jpcase (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- In addition to the sources Alvadi mentioned, ProQuest turns up profiles in the Chicago Tribune ("Joanna's summer fuels her 'Crazy Life'"), McClatchy ("Don't miss 21-year-old Joanna's talent"), the Philadelphia Inquirer ("'Crazy' journey to dream"), and others. These all predate her appearance on American Idol, so WP:NINHERITED does not apply. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Gnomingstuff Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reformed Old Apostolic Church[edit]

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

This denomination has a grand total of one match on Google Scholar with the English name. And the only thing this source states about this denomination is: "Reformed Old Apostolic Church Belhar – established 1979: 166 members;", nothing more, nothing less; and this does not match the current information on the WP article that this denomination was created in 1972. A search with the Afrikaans name has zero matches.

I have not been able to find an official website for the denomination.

This denomination clearly does not meet WP:GNG and therefore it should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and South Africa. Veverve (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have heard of this group, but will need to see if a couple Irvingite sources actually touch upon them. If I don't find anything or don't reply further, consider me moderately pro-deletion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Searches also need to be done under its former name, the Non-White Old Apostolic Church. It gets lots of hits in GBooks, but all the top ones are for the 1975 court case, Old Apostolic Church of Africa v Non-white Old Apostolic Church of Africa. StAnselm (talk) 06:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Apostolic History Network says it has 180,000 members.[12] StAnselm (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- We have normally regarded denominations as notable. If true that it has 180,000 members, I would argue that lifts it into notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Peterkingiron, but it is touch and go! There needs to be an ability to write something about the denomination, and despite the 180,000 members reported, there is a definite paucity of material. However, part of this is that this denomination gets called by another name. That is th "Non-White Old Apostolic Church of Africa" (as shown in the link provided by StAnselm). Under this name there are more sources, such as [13]. I haven't yet found anything that would make for a useful history or background in the article, but there are sufficient sources like that one to verify it is an active denomination. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. StAnselm (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bahri Tufina[edit]

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

Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBIO. Note that the current sources in the article mention other members of the Tufina family, but not Bahri himself. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not lack in coverage. With the current information that is available and trusted, I have created this document. To say it lacks in depth coverage you should be more specific as to what aspect it does and not only throw words. With more information coming to light, this page might be updated and the extra information can be added.
Family members are only mentioned to reinforce Bahri Tufina connection to his family and watchemaking in general. Also they are mentioned because Bahri Tufina has worked with them as partners or have had them as mentors. MuhamedK10 (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Three out of the four cited sources never mentioned the subject, and the one that did only mentioned him in passing. Found no significant coverage to pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as explained above, sourcing not mentioning the subject, rest of the sources are of poor quality. Oaktree b (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ZERO hits in Gnews or Gnewspapers. I would have expected someone as well-known as the article claims to have some sort of coverage when they passed away, there isn't. Oaktree b (talk) 02:15, 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 delete‎. plicit 00:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional paintball teams[edit]

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

Mostly unreferenced list, most of the teams listed have no indicator of their notability, and I don't think it's feasible for us to verify if any of those are notable, or even exist or not. External links are being added likely for promotion. A prime WP:TNT candidate if nothing else. Merko (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Laundry list of non-notable sports teams. Even the ones with references are only sourced by paintball related sources, so no verifiable depth of coverage outside of the sport. Ajf773 (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Almost none of them have any evidence of notability (i.e. no articles). Athel cb (talk) 07:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete despite calling itself a list of notable paintball teams, almost none of the teams actually look notable according to Wikipedia definition. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Vast, sprawling unsourced list with only a few notable entities included. Almost certain to be a magnet for hoaxes and vandalism. Carrite (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An unsourced list of sports teams with basically no notability. ULPS (talk) 02:07, 28 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 ‎ closed as article has been speedy deleted G7 by Lourdes. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parmida Beigi[edit]

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

LinkedIn-style biography of a researcher who fails to meet the notability criteria for scientists and academics. The page is full of mundane events written up as though they are not (e.g., Her research findings were published as a journal article — yes, that's what a researcher's job is to do). The only in-depth source fails the independence requirement, since it is from her employer. Other sources do not mention the subject at all, e.g., this page that just describes teaching assistantships at UBC. The h-index has its flaws as a measure of academic success and influence, but an h-index of only 10 even by the permissive standards of Google Scholar is nowhere near what we would consider highly cited. PROD was removed by article creator. XOR'easter (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. About the award, please note that NSERC is an award by the Government of Canada, intended to be a fair assessment solely based on the merits of researchers' research. PhD/Post graduate funding does not influence the selection process.
I believe this individual deserves a Wikipedia page based on the guidelines outlined by Wikipedia. Apart from their academic notability (apparent from NSERC recognition alone), they have made significant contributions to the democratization of AI/ML, as evidenced by their involvement in engaging with the community through various social channels. They are highly recognized in the data science and ML community, and that's the main reason I started this page for them. The recognition by Amazon Science holds high regard in the industry, highlighting Beigi's significant contributions and community involvement.
While the individual is currently an employee of Alexa AI organization, Amazon Science, is considered an independent blog that showcases exceptional individuals within the company. I'd like to highlight that only a selected few individuals are featured on this blog, and the selection process is conducted solely by Amazon Science committee itself. I would appreciate any suggestions regarding additional information that could further support the legitimacy of the article.
I reorganized the main sections to improve the article. I would appreciate any further guidance or suggestions on how to enhance the article and provide additional relevant information.
WikiFactEditorial (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An NSERC CGSD2 is a 2-year scholarship to support one's doctoral work, not an "award" in the sense that the notability guidelines ask for. We don't write articles based on future potential. Nor does a person qualify merely for having written papers. That's what the job is about, after all.
There is no way that a blog by the subject's employer can be considered an independent source for the purpose of establishing notability, no matter who within the employer decides to write it. XOR'easter (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Total fail of WP:Prof: nothing else. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Yet another unaccomplished "science communicator". Of the sources in the nominated version of the article, "On a mission to demystify artificial intelligence" is by her employer, so non-independent. The UBC "teaching assistantships" source doesn't mention her. "Be Updated With Big Data On Instagram With These 10 Profiles" and "Learning Data Science Through Social Media" are neither in-depth nor reliable. The rest appear to be works by Beigi, social media links, or mere announcements of talks by her. So we do not have a pass of WP:GNG demonstrated. The listing of awards in the infobox is decidedly unimpressive (definitely not the kind that might pass WP:PROF#C2, nor likely to have the in-depth coverage needed for GNG). And as already noted, her Google Scholar citation counts are not yet at a level that would pass WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on my article. I appreciate the committee's efforts in reviewing the content. However, I would like to highlight that the term "unaccomplished science communicators" may not be an appropriate or accurate characterization. The individuals who are often recognized as "accomplished" based on the guidelines are typically the "communicators" in fact, working with news agencies and media outlets to share their opinion! But remember that many accomplished scientists in high-tech fields or startups are often involved in confidential projects where they cannot openly discuss their work, and may not even have any interest in getting involved with news agencies anyways. Nonetheless, they are still making significant contributions to their respective fields, if not more. Thanks for the feedback! WikiFactEditorial (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a quick clarification: there's no "committee" here; we're all just volunteers who for whatever reason think that writing an encyclopedia is a good hobby. XOR'easter (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying, that explains it then. I didn't appreciate the disrespectful and unconstructive references and comments I encountered in some of the discussions. Anyhow, I have requested the speedy deletion of this article to facilitate the tasks of the volunteers! WikiFactEditorial (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see how WP:NPROF is met, or significant independant coverage for WP:GNG. More like a case of WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Smart person gets money" is what this boils down to, no sort of any award we'd recognize as notable. TOOSOON as well. Oaktree b (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow keep‎. Seems like this was a bad faith nomination by that IP, as a lot of people have mentioned. I'll amend my original statement: it was an issue of having access to the Wikipedia Library, which means IPs usually won't get access to it. So it was a good faith nomination, but some sources were paywalled/otherwise locked. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò[edit]

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

Per an IP on WT:AFD: failing WP:BIO. More like looking to get hits to their website but has links. Doing this on their behalf. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 20:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, have simply struck your !vote in bold, so it isn't double-counted by the bot. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep his two books have been widely reviewed and he passes WP:AUTHOR. A rare exception to the general rule that assistant professors are not notable. Jahaza (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jahaza I would have to disagree with you. The sources are small (a paragraph mentioning his book), the second is an interview (nothing to do with being an author, as anyone who writes a book can be interviewed by anyone and posted), the third is a reprint from a newsletter that recommended it be read (think book club), and the 4th source for his books is yet another interview. I fail to see how it would pass WP:AUTHOR under any of the 4 bullet points it has to meet as a few select sources is no where near widely reviewed. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:D41E:2828:7AA7:A58D (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources aren't small. Rather you haven't looked for the sources. For deletion, we don't rely on what is currently in the article. Anyways, for Reconsidering Reparation, I found academic reviews in Mind, Ethics, Philosophical Quarterly, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, Race & Class, and the British Journal of Educational Studies and popular reviews in Bookforum and The Friend. For Elite Capture, I found reviews in The New Yorker, Bookforum, Austrailian Book Review, Lateral, Jacobin, The Point, and the European Journal of Social Theory among others. This was all easily found with Google.Jahaza (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for me (I kinda nominated it on behalf of another user, after all)... not sure. WP:BEFORE was a bit hard considering another professor with the exact same name (with the same article creator!), but it seems like this professor may go either side of the GNG pass criteria. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    yeah no nvm keep, seems like that IP made this nomination in bad faith. I can't really close as I voted keep, but this sounds like a WP:SNOW situation. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you used Wikipedia Library yet? Looks like you qualify. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cielquiparle Why don’t you use it and add to it? You are allowed to if you feel you can get it better than it is? I did what I can do but then you put it on someone else after accusing me of not doing WP:BEFORE. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:D41E:2828:7AA7:A58D (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is so much content in the sources already cited, as well as the articles that turn up in Google, that it will take a very long time to add. This AfD discussion is a waste of time. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle Then don’t participate and please don’t edit other users comments. That violates the rules. Vote how you want and we will see which way it goes. That is what this process is about. If you don’t want to add to the article “with all of these sources” on a 22/23 year old who has a PhD then don’t do it. That is up to you. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:D41E:2828:7AA7:A58D (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was only trying to help. You seem unfamiliar with the rules. And I like to promote Wikipedia Library to users who qualify. Have a good day. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle Helping does not include telling someone how to do research, I too ran him through Google and all the pages that came up are not qualified sources. The edit you just did on the page is not exactly correct either but that is a different story. Striking out others comments in an AFD is not allowed. It’s actually not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia. I do know the rules. Calling this “a waste of time” and the edit comments you have made can also be taken as a personal attack but I’m going to assume you “know all the rules” since you assumed “I don’t know the rules”. You too have a good day child. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:D41E:2828:7AA7:A58D (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is practically impossible to earn a PhD without being at least being 27 years of age. Take in 4 years for Bachelors, 2 years on Masters and about 3-4 years to earn your PhD. 18 is average on graduating high school, 22 to get your bachelor’s, 24 to have your masters and 27 min to earn your PhD. Granted their are very rare rare cases where they can get it a year or two earlier. But the article states that this year he would be 23 or 24 years old. So he has to be much older than that. I cannot find any sources of his actual age or date of birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:D41E:2828:7AA7:A58D (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Well... the article makes it seem like he is 33, not 23. So that argument's out of the window. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's nonsense, anyway. I received my D.Phil. when I was 24, and there was nothing unusual about that. Lots of people of 24 or 25 did as well. Athel cb (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LilianaUwU You are correct. Math escapes me sometimes. I have struck out my comment. Thank you for politely correcting me. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:EDD0:1731:CBFF:D3DD (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR, his two books were both only published in the last year or so but they already have 99 and 71 citations respectively on google scholar, which indicate that he's widely read and cited. - car chasm (talk) 00:59, 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. I am entirely ignoring the sockpuppet's contributions here, and I am also setting aside !votes based on "visual arguments", which have no basis in policy. However, there remain a few "keep" !votes based on new sources, which have not been explicitly rebutted in any way; as such there is consensus to keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One World Trade Center (Long Beach)[edit]

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

PROD rationale: Pretty standard skyscraper. Sole source is Emporis, and then a source about how something else surpassed it in height. Unable to locate any significant non-local coverage about this tower.

De-PROD'd with the following edit summary: second tallest building in Long Beach could be notable

Naturally, no sourcing has been added to support this claim. ♠PMC(talk) 05:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, The photograph File:OneWorldTradeCenterLongBeach.jpg provides a strong visual argument that this building is notable in multiple regards to the area sufficiently for Wikipedia's purposes.
Regarding the significant local coverage point; whether or not coverage is local doesn't go to SIGCOV. Coverage can be both local and significant. In any case; SIGCOV merely establishes a presumption toward notability. We don't need that presumption here; as the photographs of the building I think make a fair case that this is a notable subject. Jack4576 (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is meant by a "strong visual argument"? Isn't notability, etc. determined by sourcing?--Gen. Quon[Talk] 13:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do not only have to be textual. Visual sources demonstrative of notability may also satisfy GNG. Jack4576 (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This building is not notable in any way PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
lets see what the consensus thinks Jack4576 (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. User:Jack4576 is correct. And there is no way this should be outright deleted; note it links to List of tallest buildings in Long Beach and at the very worst it should be merged/redirected to there, as the nominator should know. The appropriate forum for such a proposal would be wp:MERGE. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 18:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I've added two sources from the Los Angeles Times which establish notability per WP:GNG. Garuda3 (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would close this as keep, but the arguments about "visual notability" are not rooted in policy were given next to no weight. That left me with a no consensus situation that may be resolved by some analysis about the sources added by Garuda3.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:Delete Assess of the newly added Sources:

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Adler3
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-los-angeles-times-long-beach-tower-s/124861892/ Yes Local newspaper Yes Local newspaper No Routine sale of expensive building. See below. No
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-los-angeles-times-landmark-office-to/124862152/ No They interview the building owners. The owners say that the building is a "trendsetter". Yes Local newspaper No Routine sale of expensive building. See below. No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Per WP:NBUILD "historic, social, economic, or architectural importance" is required. The two sources are just about the building being sold. I think this building does not have "economic importance". I would consider economic importance to be where a building that contains a large shopping mall at the ground floor, for example. In both of the sources it is noted that the building is large and expensive, but it has not been said why it stands out from the rest. Adler3 (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NBUILD is just a guideline, not a policy, and is trumped by WP:GNG. Besides, being "large and expensive" implies economic importance. There is also no need for something to "stand out from the rest" for inclusion on Wikipedia, and there's no reason why discussio of a sale doesn't meet GNG. WP:ROUTINE after all is part of our events guidelines and so isn't applicable to a building. Garuda3 (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my understanding Guidelines are instructions how to apply policies in particular situations. Economic importance would be that it makes up a significant percentage of the city or the county's economy, leads to the creation of neighborhoods, etc. The sources do not point to that. Rather, reading them, this building seems like a run-of-the-mill development. About WP:ROUTINE: the building purchase could count as a routine event. Adler3 (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per the relist comment, the idea of a photo from an editor in Commons showing notability is nonsense and I think trolling. Fails GNG. 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]
Jack obviously did a complete BEFORE and had nothing but a photo to show.  // Timothy :: talk  01:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that it is trolling. Rather Jack was arguing that a skyscraper should belong in an encyclopedia by virtue of being a skyscraper. I think there was some merit to saying that 70 years in the past. But I think that now there are just too many skyscrapers around for any given skyscraper to be considered notable. Adler3 (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what they said, their exact words are "The photograph File:OneWorldTradeCenterLongBeach.jpg provides a strong visual argument that this building is notable in multiple regards to the area sufficiently for Wikipedia's purposes."  // Timothy :: talk  02:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I change my mind. Adler3 (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This argument appears to have no relation to this article. Garuda3 (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added to the article's talk page a baker's dozen sources that demonstrate notability and could be used to expand the article. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as demonstrated by Garuda3 and Worldbruce. ~Kvng (talk) 16:58, 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 Draftify‎. This is a procedural mess. The author was not necessarily wrong to agree to work on it in draftspace, but it is not unknown of editors to dodge review of non-notable topics by moving something to draft and then recreating it soon after. As such, the AfD, once opened, should be allowed to run its course; and if the author wants to save everyone trouble, they should explicitly undertake to substantially improve the claim to notability and/or to recreate only via WP:AFC. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leycang El Grandioso[edit]

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

Non notable performer Bedivere (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Source 2, 3 and 20 are trivial mentions, and source 12 is permanently dead. All the rest of the cited sources are promotional pieces. Many of them share similar word choice, such as "bring more suprises/best of his music to all the fans", "202x has been a fruitful year for Leycang", or "leave our flag always high throughout the world", to a point where it can't possibly be a coincidence. And others still troubled me with their celebratory tone and "check out his music/social media" at the bottom of the contents. Coverage about him that I found are trivial mentions or promotional pieces as well. I can't find much about the award he's been given/nominated for either. The subject just does not seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Contributor draftified the article (leaving a redirect behind) to Draft:Leycang El Grandioso. The redirect cannot remain, but do we restore the article until the discussion ends? — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You can close the discussion, I have already transferred the article to a draft, and if you wish I can send it to my workshop to work on it there, there is no problem. I hope you can understand. Ftrbnd (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be clarified that you have every right to restore the article and we continue with the discussion about whether or not to delete the article. Kind regards, Ftrbnd (talk) 04:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have reverted @Doomsdayer520:'s non admin closure. Although the article has been draft-ified, the discussion on the deletion on the former-article-turned-draft needs to be continued, and to me it is obvious it will be deleted. I'm afraid it's been draft-ified to avoid deletion. That simply cannot be allowed. Bedivere (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can't you see that the article title at the top of this discussion is in RED, meaning that the mainspace article that this AfD is about has been deleted? Click on that red title and you will see it was speedy deleted by the admin Fastily because of the draftification. That means this AfD is over and closing it is standard procedure. If you think the draft version should also be deleted then that discussion must take place elsewhere. You just created more work for someone. I could revert your revert and close this AfD again, but you can explain why someone else now has to do it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Doomsdayer520: While 'draftify' is one possible outcome of the discussion, the fact that someone moves an article under deletion discussion does not mean the discussion should be closed. The redirect was deleted because it was a cross-namespace redirect; a redirect from article space to draft space or user space is simply not allowed.
One aspect of the discussion is to consider whether the subject is notable – not just whether the current references in the article establish notability but whether it appears there exist references that could establish notability. Moving the article should not short-circuit the discussion. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs)
This is truly anal-retentive procedure worship. The article's creator voluntarily moved the article out of mainspace in the good-faith belief that it was not yet ready, meaning that it had technically been deleted which was the goal of the nomination. But then the nominator brought it back into mainspace in the interests of keeping a then-irrelevant forum discussion open and after it reached the nominator's desired conclusion. And the ensuing discussion is likely to lead to the exact same conclusion that had already been reached. The bureaucrats at the DMV are jealous. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: creator draftified the article, and while it was reverted, I don't see any reason to delete this instead of following their wishes. Let them build on it in draftspace and potentially submit it, or G13 will kick in eventually. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would like to enhance the article so that it can meet the notability criteria in the future. If you agree, please send the article to my personal workshop, where I will work on it further. Once I consider it ready (at least from my perspective), I will put it into a draft and submit a request to see if it meets the requirements at that time. Do you agree with this proposal? - Ftrbnd (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I also want to include that if you decide to delete the article because it truly does not meet the notability criteria, you can do so without any issues, and I won't write anything further about the artist unless they gain greater prominence in the future. My intention is just to bring this discussion to a close so that it doesn't take up any more of our time, and we can continue improving Wikipedia to make it a safe environment. - Ftrbnd (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - For procedural and good-faith reasons, which was already done as described several times above by the article's creator. Kudos to the Admin who finishes the unnecessary work created by the bureaucrats above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:37, 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.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Starlord (singer)[edit]

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

This person does not satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, or WP:MUSICBIO. It would seem he’s at the start of what might become a promising career, and has a few stories about him, but has not yet achieved the notability required for an article. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Person Has collaborated with a Known Notable Entity and has been Featured on Clash Magazine 69.160.103.6 (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need extensive coverage of this, not just trivial mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. The best sources I could find are already in the article, and there really is very little online about this individual at all (regardless of reliability). The Clash source is a name-drop, nothing more; I'm unconvinced that urbanislandz.com and Jamaicans.com are reliable; and while jamaica-gleaner.com appears to be a local news source, it's not really biographical in nature, and also has WP:AUDIENCE problems. The Dance Hall source doesn't load for me, hence the "weak". Vanamonde (Talk) 17:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - not every person who releases a musical recording is notable. The coverage is of that of a person in their early 20s who might become a prominent musician in the future ... or might not. Walt Yoder (talk) 22:41, 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 00:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Softball at the 1920 Summer Olympics[edit]

Softball at the 1920 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Article is a hoax created by a serial hoaxer IP account that managed to get through AfC with no sources actually verifying the event. The article is copied entirely from Baseball at the 1912 Summer Olympics, with the only changes being the year and the location - note that it still says that Sweden is the 'host' despite the game apparently being played in Belgium!! Softball didn't feature at the Olympics until 1996. Everything that this article discusses is about a baseball game 8 years prior that already has its own article so this one should just be deleted. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics, Softball, Belgium, Sweden, and United States of America. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this is also true, IP should have vandalism (and likely sockpuppet) case opened, with all their creations like this deleted as matter of course. Kingsif (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious hoax, IP has been blocked. I am at a loss as to how this got through AfC, especially since it is an obvious copy of another page. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 23:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I can't find a single source online that verifies the existence of such an event. Nythar (💬-🍀) 23:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Not only the article content but also the sources point towards baseball in 1912, not softball in 1920. /Julle (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentBigHaz, are you sure it's a good idea to keep a hoax article active for an entire week when its totally obvious that the article is a hoax? Doesn't this qualify for a speedy WP:SNOW deletion? Nythar (💬-🍀) 23:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It may do. My instinct has always been that the outcome of an AfD (speedy or otherwise) is more "final" than a CSD is - there's a reason a declined CSD can be taken to AfD, after all - so the logic of removing the CSD tag was more along the lines of letting AfD do whatever it wants to do, sort of thing. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I'll wait. Nythar (💬-🍀) 00:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obvious hoax as per discussion. ULPS (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like a hoax. Festucalextalk 06:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Carrite (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The effort put into an article is, for better or worse, a very weak argument at AfD. Lists need to meet LISTN or LISTPURP, and no strong argument has been put forward for either criterion here. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of proprietary software for Linux[edit]

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

Contested prod, this article does not meet WP:LISTN. Sources are low quality primary sources. Seems to be a collection of miscellaneous facts, which falls under WP:NOT. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:45, 21 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 21. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 15:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Lists. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The category is too expansive, even if limited to notable programs for which we have articles, to form a reasonable list. According to PetScan, there are 80 unique articles within Category:Proprietary software for Linux and its subcategories, most of which are not exclusive to Linux. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 20:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTIINFO. Unwieldy list of practically every third party software for a particular operating system. Ajf773 (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The vast majority of entries either have no article, or are cross-platform software. (As an aside, Minecraft is amusingly in the 'Visual novels' section.) SWinxy (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I disagree with the assertion that it's a collection of "miscellaneous facts" or unnecessarily long, any more so than any other tech list. List of Intel Celeron processors, for example. The number of columns for the parts that have been organized are comparatively concise. That said, from a maintainability standpoint, it's hard to argue that the information couldn't be conveyed better in other ways/places, such as List of Linux games, or that it isn't overly prone to mistakes, due to many editors not knowing what "proprietary" means. inclusivedisjunction (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep On the basis of some of the arguments brought by User:Inclusivedisjunction above: There are other lists, such as the List of Linux games, and lists of various microprocessors, and they survive fine. The presence of the article helps to inform people who would want to migrate to Linux, away from proprietary operating systems, but who would need a specific proprietary program to run their business. The article Firefox version history survived its second deletion proposal for some of the similar reasons, and that is to inform people from a reliable repository of information, which Wikipedia is. -Mardus /talk 02:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't seem there was even a deletion debate on List of Linux games and the Firefox version history was not really a true keep outcome but a no-consensus (which defaults to keep), so I don't think that is a particular good argument. The current article uses even worse reference quality. I agree with @Ajf773 that this list is unwieldy. There is also no List of Microsoft Windows software because that would result in a far too big list, the same applies to Linux these days since so much software is cross-platform. PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the time the article was created, Linux was a very niche operating system, and remains so to this day on the desktop. Android was never a consideration. The common complaint has been, that 'there's no software for it' to justify migration from Windows to Linux. Some of the proprietary titles listed might also be Linux-only, and not available for Windows. -Mardus /talk 20:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for convincing or helping people to switch to Linux. Android is a Linux distribution too (but not GNU/Linux). PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't yet want to vote for delete because I haven't checked this thoroughly but likely there are a) too many potential entries b) the list is missing a lot of notable entries c) it's not a list that's useful (or similar) to readers. Concerning c) and Mardus' point about people who want to migrate to Linux: they aren't looking for proprietary software that runs on Linux in specific but various specific applications or application purposes that run on Linux. For example, if Photoshop doesn't work on Linux distros, an alternative would be GIMP. But if Photoshop were to run on Linux it would be listed here instead of in a List of graphics editor software for Linux with a subsection (or sortable column) for #Proprietary software. I suggest people work on actually meaningful and useful lists that are fairly complete and/or only have relatively few potential notable items. All in all I tend towards delete.
Prototyperspective (talk) 09:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Prototyperspective To me, that seems like a reasonable basis to make a vote :) PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Marcus. When I removed the PROD tag this week, I pointed out that this article had 802 edits by 348 editors. It’s been added to and maintained since 2006. That’s a lot of interest and effort by a lot of people. This AfD is ill-advised. Note: I encourage notifying some of those editors of this AfD - that’s a common practice that I don’t think has been done yet. —A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count) 12:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that people are merely interested in it and/or the article is old are not good rationales for keeping information on Wikipedia, it has to be in the scope for the Wikipedia project and adhere to our other policies and guidelines. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:POPULARPAGE is not a suitable argument for retaining an article. Ajf773 (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it could make a valid point for the topic being notable, that guidelines (not policy) even admits article popularity is likely to correspond with some form of notability which should then be straightforward to verify. However, it only got 627 pageviews in the last 30 days which is not a lot (actually that's very little albeit the imo notable topic of pandemic prevention – a topic one may be interested in in the near-term if continuation of present civilization is of value – doesn't get much more either). Having "802 edits by 348 editors" just shows that the page requires a lot of work to maintain and expand (probably still missing even a lot of basic info) which should rather work on more useful lists like "List of gaming software for Linux" or similar and so on. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:09, 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 delete‎. Ordinarily I would not close an AfD with so little input, but the primary author is also the nominator, and there are reasonable arguments for the application of G7 and G10. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Roadrunner Records[edit]

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

Back in June 2022, I made this page beacause I noticed a lot of negativity/controversy around Roadrunner Records with its artists. I could have put it on the Roadrunner Records page, but chose not to because it would have taken up a significant amount of space on the page. In retrospect the page is a bad idea; I feel that it gives undue weight to the criticisms, could be interpreted as defamatory (which was not intentional) and that these criticisms should have been better intergrated into the main page in a MUCH different way. So I want to delete the page because of undue weight and other related issues with a page like this. Chchcheckit (talk) 15:22, 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 23:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Narayani Subramaniam[edit]

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

This person does not satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, or WP:NPROF. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Further research shows this person is not notable.
Hadal1337 (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Currently cited sources are routine coverage, trivial mentions, and online profiles. Searches in Tamil only yield trivial mentions and articles written by the subject. Lacks sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. plicit 13:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

W2 Racing[edit]

W2 Racing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another contested draftification with zero in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources. Searches did not turn up enough other than routine sports coverage. Onel5969 TT me 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, RL0919 (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:46, 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. JBW (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

XTiles[edit]

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

This reads to me like a promotional piece masquerading as an article. Sources are generally limited to short mentions or reviews (neither of which are reliable with significant coverage), without a unambiguous neutral claim to notability, and I can't find any potential sources not of the type "list of best/new apps for note taking", for example. Complex/Rational 14:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but please don't delete the article, I'm still working on it and improving it. Barabashenjatko (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the previous tag {{advert|date=May 2023}} as my research is not complete yet, can you check the article again when I'm done? Barabashenjatko (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more information with links to sources. I wrote the article based on the example of Notion (productivity software). https://www.g2.com is this rating popular or not enough? Barabashenjatko (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Barabashenjatko I put an under construction template at the top of the article itself, to let editors know it is still a work in progress. Hopefully, this will put the brakes on the AFD issue until you are finished with your work. I was going to suggest you do the work in your sandbox, but I see you're way ahead of me on that. Good luck. — Maile (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66Thank you very much! Barabashenjatko (talk) 08:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66Perhaps you can draw my attention to the mistakes I made while writing the article? Barabashenjatko (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Barabashenjatko the subject matter is beyond my area of knowledge, so I can't be helpful there. However, ComplexRational who nominated this for deletion is also an administrator on Wikipedia. Perhaps they could guide you the right direction in finishing this article.— Maile (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not an expert on the subject matter, but I can tell you that many of the sources currently present in the article do not demonstrate that this software is notable. Namely, they only contain short mentions of the subject and are primarily lists and product reviews subject to the discretion of the publisher. In contrast, the types of sources demonstrating notability typically include books or dedicated reviews from independent publishers; these then usually exclude short opinion pieces (not detailed), blogs (usually considered unreliable), or the company's webpage (not independent). This essay on rough notability standards for software goes into greater detail.
Nonetheless, this source which you recently added might be usable for notability purposes, as PC world is a widely-known publication. If you can find multiple similar sources, perhaps notability could be demonstrated; I couldn't find much outside of short customer reviews in a quick search, though again, perhaps someone more knowledgeable about publications in this field would know better, especially regarding foreign-language sources.
In addition, text such as On medium.com you can find 33 interesting articles about xTiles, published by various authors. and In September 2022 Jessica Tan of ContentGrip publishes 19 awesome apps for freelance writers in 2022, xTiles in fourth place. comes across as promotional. Wikipedia articles should aim to describe a subject neutrally, i.e., without suggesting that the author is biased or trying to sell a product. This means that language such as "you", "interesting", "awesome", should be cut out, leaving behind a straightforward description of the facts.
I realize this is a lot to digest, and would be happy to answer more specific questions. The main takeaway is that you need several reputable sources describing this app in detail to demonstrate that it is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about it. Complex/Rational 13:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I just tried to add as much as possible all possible articles published on I-net Barabashenjatko (talk) 14:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2
and who removes these messages? Because I accidentally deleted it and more of them appeared) Barabashenjatko (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can remove the under construction template whenever you're no longer actively working on the article. The advertisement tag is related to one of the issues in this deletion discussion, and I don't believe it's entirely fixed; the orphan template means that no articles link to XTiles and so ought to remain until such a link is created. Finally, the article for deletion template must not be removed until this deletion discussion runs its course. Complex/Rational 19:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any editor can add or remove these 'tags' when it is appropriate. They are there to warn readers of potential issues, and alerts other editors that there is a problem with the article they may need to fix. Once the problem in the tags is addressed, as described by the text the tag generates, an editor can remove it. There are a lot of tags and a lot of different issues tags address, but it's a working system developed over the past 15 years. SWinxy (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a promo, xTiles is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article.
Hadal1337 (talk) 15:49, 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 13:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enthira Kaalai[edit]

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

No notability RemotelyInterested (talk) 12:31, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Equatorial Guinea–Kosovo relations[edit]

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

Only one of the reference links in the article still works, and only in the sense that it mentions Kosovo in two sentences. The story told is of bilateral relations that do not actually exist. This is another glaring failure to observe the basic idea of WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV. It sounds like some sort of WP:SOAPBOXing over the topic of international recognition of Kosovo, and this trivial bit of info here is already in there anyway. --Joy (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Kosovo. Joy (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I fixed the broken links in the article. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 14:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG. This article helps with the WP:SIZE issues at the International recognition of Kosovo article, and good part of its related content was moved in order to trim the article. Other issues mentioned can be solved per WP:BEFORE, such as a move to Equatorial Guinea's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You need more than a handful of sentences from politicians saying something vague to make a topic worthy of its own article. --Joy (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete already sufficiently covered in International_recognition_of_Kosovo#E. LibStar (talk) 00:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom and Libstar. I don't see evidence of coverage satisfying WP:SIGCOV. Yilloslime (talk) 01:34, 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 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 13:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soliai Letutusa[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence that Letutusa meets WP:SPORTBASIC #5. The sources cited don't seem to mention him. In my searches, I can find the usual database sites which confirm that he exists but do not confer notability. Oceania Football mentions him as an unused sub in a game and Samoa Observer has an image caption mentioning him, both far from WP:SIGCOV. Other than that, I found Oceania Football Center which also mentions him just once. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. plicit 13:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tanner McCalister[edit]

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

Another contested draft with zero improvement, and zero in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources which are not routine sports coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 10:37, 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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 17:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Eastwood at the 2012 Republican National Convention[edit]

Clint Eastwood at the 2012 Republican National Convention (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a WP:NOTNEWS item. There is an article about the Political life of Clint Eastwood so I wouldn't have a problem with merge, although I think we should delete. Desertarun (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Of course it wasn't a speech, but he certainty made the news afterwards. He was there for his entertainment value. It was an Eastwood performance, what he does so well, this time at a political convention. It was possibly more remembered than anything else that happened at the convention that night. As such, he did what he was hired for, and had people talking about it for a long time afterwards. We're discussing it now. It's part of a series on Eastwood, and should remain as such. — Maile (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a very notable appearance which is still discussed years later. Lightburst (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:NOTNEWS is definitely a consideration, but there are sources from after the event: this one from over a year later, for instance. Also discussed in a biography of Eastwood here, and in a 2013 book looking retrospectively at the 2012 campaign here. To me, that's clear evidence that the notability of this event is more than that of a news story, even leaving aside the huge number of 2012 sources in the article. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per LightburstJack4576 (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is definitely a WP:LASTING event that is still mentioned today, 11 years later. The 1st AfD from 2013 already looked at it as beyond WP:NOTNEWS. – The Grid (talk) 01:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If NOTNEWS, then why is it being discussed on the national stage 10 years later? [14]. Here's [15] a mention about it in 2020. This in addition to coverage in later presidential election cycle years.[16], [17] I would support renaming, maybe to Clint Eastwood's empty chair speech. Jacona (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to Withdraw this one. Desertarun (talk) 14:47, 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 11:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Table tennis at the 1984 Summer Olympics[edit]

Table tennis at the 1984 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Table tennis was not a demonstration sport at the 1984 Olympics. All this content relates to the 1988 Games. was the reasoning by User:Nthep. The content is identical to Table tennis at the 1988 Summer Olympics, from the medal tables to the sources used. I can't find any reliable source that says this event even took place, so we could even maybe make an argument that this could be deleted on hoax grounds. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Olympics, and California. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete someone’s having a laugh. Mccapra (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - Complete lack of verifiability. --MuZemike 14:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above, LA84 produced a very long report and it only mentions table tennis as something in the residence halls and (as recreation) at a training facility. Kingsif (talk) 15:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax. /Julle (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just a copy of the 1988 article, and so not needed as it's misleading/a hoax (depending on whether there was actually an event in 1984). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Festucalextalk 06:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. There is agreement that the amount of prose size justifies a split from the main article. plicit 13:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and work of Clint Eastwood[edit]

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

This is a WP:content fork and tells an encyclopaedia audience nothing of interest that isn't in the main article. Specialist information such as this can be read in an autobiography if the reader wishes to know. There have been two previous AFDs but I believe content forks such as this are now very much out of favour and a new AFD is required. I don't have any prejudice against merge and delete. Desertarun (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, struck. Desertarun (talk) 10:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clint Eastwood has over 10,000 words of readable prose, which is above the suggested amount for considerung splitting at WP:Article size. Given agreement at its talk page, the main article should be reduced in size before merging this stuff in. Thincat (talk) 10:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this sort of article is just overdetailed fancruft. Gugrak (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have early life articles on some very notable people, Clint Eastwood I would consider notable enough. This has a few thousand views a month. It could be condensed in places to reduce the cruft concern but I think we're better off as a resource having more detail than the main article on his background, and there are plenty of sources which document it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Clint Eastwood article is 72686 characters. This article is 25037 characters. This is just necessary and appropriate splitting. I do not think the nominator has made any claim about this not being a notable topic. I also do not think "content forks such as this are now very much out of favour". Lightburst (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would say we don't need an "early life" article for Clint Eastwood nor most subjects, but I would say that when the article gets to a certain size, splitting it is a useful navigational aid as discussed in Wikipedia:Splitting. I don't see any evidence that splitting has drastically changed from an accepted outcome at the second nomination in 2019, but is "now very much out of favour" either. Jacona (talk) 15:22, 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 11:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Latt Wai Phone[edit]

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

Tagged for notability by User:Onel5969 but removed almost immediately after by an IP editor with no explanation or improvements made. Looks to be a clear case of failing WP:SPORTBASIC #5 and the consensus within the community is that such articles should be deleted, especially if a BLP. Best sources in my searches were GNLM and Myanmar Digital Newspaper (translated), both of which only mention him once, so are blatantly not WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Muscat (politician)[edit]

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

Single Source BLP Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 07:39, 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 11:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suzan Mazur[edit]

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

A reporter. No independent references. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 05:22, 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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protests of 1968[edit]

Protests of 1968 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are little or no references which link the several events. They bear at most a family resemblance. (Indeed, one may cite an example of protests in the Soviet sphere and protests against the genocide in Mexico both being possibly anti-authoritarian. Perhaps the 2 case studies each may even have references to support the claim that they are anti-authoritarian. But to place them in the same article for that reason would be culpable of wp:synthesis.) Therefore, the link between the many protests lacks wp:notability. Wikipedia articles are not to be "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", because WP:NOTCATALOG. On top of that, this page is guilty of wp:crosscat between the 1968 events and protests. Finally, one may argue that the indiscriminate lumping of disparate Left-leaning movements together, which possibly fabricates in readers a artificial narrative of a 1960s' revival of the Left or ascent of New social movements be culpable of wp:advocacy - be it lauding or derogating (and raising fear) the disparate left-leaning New social movements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FatalSubjectivities (talkcontribs) 16:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this JSTOR article has been written by two academics with wp:notability. However, Many more wp:ref - which explicitly connect "Protests" (or Political demonstration, or revolution etc) and the year 1968 in particular - are needed to prevent the article topic itself from having wp:undue weight. (Undue-weight content ought be trimmed. But if the article's very heart is undue-weight, we may agree that the article itself ought be removed.) "1968 protests" in such wp:ref ought to be an expression by itself, as in "2007–2008 financial crisis" or "2019 novel coronavirus". Otherwise, articles 'Protests of 1969' or '... of 1970' may exist. Therefore, Wikipedia's nonacceptance of wp:crosscat helps prevent such articles from existing. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / Oppose There are numerous sources that cover this. - SchroCat (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Malformed nomination fixed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 04:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per discussion above and sources already linked in article Jack4576 (talk) 05:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I remember these vividly. There was a wave of interconnected upheavals around the world. —A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count) 15:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I not only remember various protests being interconnected in 1968, but also studied them as a unit in a university course later in life. Of course this is a notable topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Needs cleanup, sourcing, but meets the standard for an overview article per WP:SUMMARY.  // Timothy :: talk  18:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable topic, meets WP:SIGCOV and WP:SUMMARY. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Clear consensus that purging the unsourced is preferable to deletion. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Combatives[edit]

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

I PROD'd this article with the statement "I was going to remove the unsourced content but that is basically the entire article so instead I will tag it for Proposed deletion as Original research." The PROD tag was removed and it was suggested that I bring this to AFD. Undoubtedly, a decent article on this subject could be written but this version seems to be almost all original research on the subject with some bits taken from a military archived page. It would be nice if editors who focus on the military could take this article on as a writing project but we can't dictate to other editors how to spend their time. As an alternative, we could reduce this to a stub, keeping just the sections that are supported by sources. Liz Read! Talk! 03:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: per deletion is not cleanup Jack4576 (talk) 05:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to Stub per nom's alternative suggestion. At least a stub might attract some editorial attention. Intothatdarkness 16:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and remove all uncited content. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to a stub containing only the well-sourced information. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reduce to stub per nom. I agree that leaving the article as a stub is better than deletion. CycloneYoris talk! 10:45, 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. Noting in passing that "delete, not notable" is not an argument I can give any weight to. If there is evidence behind your argument, you need to tell the closer what it is. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Black[edit]

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

Not notable either as an athlete or a musician Nswix (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Martial arts, and Canada. Nswix (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article was created by an experienced editor back in 2006, when the notability rules for musicians were much looser. Robin Black actually has an AllMusic profile ([18]), but it is a very brief mishmash of two different acts. One is called Robin Black & the Intergalactic Rock Stars and the other is simply called Robin Black. Neither of those has any additional significant coverage that I can find, and are only found in the usual retail/streaming services. Meanwhile, this article attempts to cover the entire life story of the guy named Robin Black, which is inconsistent, and his other activities in martial arts aren't even close to notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Robin Black+IGS and Robin Black as a person don't really have two separate notability claims for the purposes of warranting two standalone articles here — in fact, even the band was only "Robin Black+IGS" on one album, and was just billed as "Robin Black" on the other. So they don't have detachable notabilities at all, because the band were ultimately just session musicians playing behind an individual person: they're one topic rather than two, in the same sense that there would be absolutely no point in having two separate articles about Natalie Imbruglia as a person and "Natalie Imbruglia (band)" as a band fronted by that person (which has, in fact, been attempted on Wikipedia in the past). Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sure is an odd response in which you debunked a recommendation that I didn't make. Oh well, my vote stands but I have no significant argument with the different opinions below. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DooomDayer, I just made a massive addition and reorganization and added many coverage from reliable sources. His martial arts ventures are actually what makes him the most notable. He has become one of the most recognized figure in Mma as an analyst. Please go take a look Lethweimaster (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Searching "Robin Black" and "Intergalactic Rock Stars" on ProQuest gives over 200 results, from a wide variety of publications, such as Toronto Star, The Ottawa Citizen, and Billboard. Almost all of these articles are well-over a decade old, which might explain why little was coming up for Doomsdayer520 on Google search. --Jpcase (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you link these sources? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need to be logged in to ProQuest to see them, but Wikipedia gives people access to ProQuest here. Sign in to ProQuest using your Wikipedia account, search "Robin Black" "Intergalactic Rock Stars", and you should see hundreds of results. --Jpcase (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is just an old article that was created in 2006 to 2006-vintage content standards, and hasn't been improved as much as it should have been as those standards evolved and changed. He's not nearly as prominent, and thus not nearly as top of mind for people, in 2023 as he was 15 to 20 years ago — hell, even I had pretty much forgotten that this article even existed, and I was its original creator — so the article merely got overlooked by the "fixing old articles" crew as quality standards were refined and tightened up. But notability is based on the existence of appropriate, notability-building sources, not on whether they're all already in the current version of the article or not — and, as noted by Jpcase, he most certainly does have sufficient coverage to get this article back up to contemporary standards. I'll take a stab at fixing it today. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article is now solidly sourced. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great work Bearcat, I also added many more sources. Lethweimaster (talk) 21:59, 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 keep‎. Will move over existing dab page as suggested. RL0919 (talk) 02:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Graves (person)[edit]

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL, lacks significant coverage. US-Verified (talk) 11:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the building named after him is briefly mentioned here [19], still nothing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If this article winds up being kept, it should be moved to Antoine Graves in lieu of the disambiguation page which is there now. The only similarly titled article is about a building named after this person. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet notability based on lack of citations.Hkkingg (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I cannot judge, but was he a significant figure in the struggle against segregation in the US? If so, it might make him notable. I cannot judge. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect after move (per Metropolitan90) to Oakland Cemetery (Atlanta), possibly lightly merge to that article. The coverage of him appears to mostly be connected pretty tightly to having the sole mausoleum in the black section of this cemetery. I'm not seeing enough for a full article, but redirects are cheap, and it appears that many books on the cemetery mention him. The Black Calhouns by Gail Lumet Buckley might possibly have deeper coverage, but I'm unable to view the book to determine. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Draftify Graves appears to have been an important figure in Atlanta's Black community during the Jim Crow Era. There is some coverage in this book, Here is more. Here is his obituary. Here is discussed in a contemporary newspaper. --User:Namiba 19:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are enough to establish notability. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow discussion of recently discovered sources. Otherwise consensus is keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lilt (company)[edit]

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

WP:PROMOTIONAL article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every source in this article is WP:ROUTINE. Care to provide sources that both focus entirely on the company and thoroughly examine it? Nythar (💬-🍀) 02:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Axios and SaaS Industry are not routine
"focus entirely on the company and thorough examination" is plainly not the guideline or threshold Jack4576 (talk) 05:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: This article is written like an advertisement. It is now gone. CastJared (talk) 08:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CastJared What do you mean by It is now gone? AncientWalrus (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Means it's removed. Like the promo writting. CastJared (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as promo content has been removed. It is notable per SIGCOV in reliable sources that goes beyond routine. AncientWalrus (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems to me that the article should be left for revision and removal of the promotional text. --Loewstisch (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It appears that the promotional content has been removed, and that the listed sources are sufficient for crossing the notability threshold. Sal2100 (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify‎. plicit 01:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard with a Gun[edit]

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

Coverage of this upcoming video-game is limited to run-of-the-mill announcement articles. The hard-drive.net article provides more depth, but isn't an independent source. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Internet. DreamRimmer (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Collider.com, nerdstash, yourgames.tv articles are not ROTM, SIGCOV is here. Jack4576 (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify SlightAngle works for Devolver (declared) and I don't really mind them making articles for games as long as they aren't overtly promotional and advertisement in nature, but some of their stuff tends to be WP:TOOSOON. This is one of those things, and it currently lacks SIGCOV from RELIABLE sources. It will almost certainly be notable in the future, but right now it isn't, so it should be kept on ice until the game's release. The user should be made to know that Wikipedia is not a pre-release hype promotional tool, just a recorder of notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 08:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    TOOSOON is not policy Jack4576 (talk) 09:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but WP:N is. Merko (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP is more than a ‘recorder of notability’ … perhaps the quiet part was just said out loud, methinks Jack4576 (talk) 09:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Don't make me tap the sign..." *points to WP:ONLYESSAY*
    As for whether Wikipedia records notability, I don't think that's a secret. It's literally explained in great detail at WP:N. You might think something is the coolest masterwork of art of all times, but WP:ITSCOOL is not an argument. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 11:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    TOOSOON is not an explicitly stated aspect of GNG. For that reason i’m ignoring that particular essay. (If I was to be cheeky i’d point out that ATA is not policy, either)
    I’ve pointed out that SIGCOV has been met here based on an evaluation of the sources; enabling a notability assessment to be made, which I subjecting think is the case here. Reasonable minds may differJack4576 (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per Zxcvbnm's decision. CastJared (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify obviously. The only circumstances in which a game will ever qualify as notable before its release is where there is such a fuss and performance about its production (for example some massive scandal) that sources spontaneously write about it independently of the pre-release publicity. This is very rare. For any normal game, at this stage, all the information available will come from the game's creator. SlightAngle should indeed be reminded that (1) Wikipedia is not to be misused as a publicity tool, and (2) COI articles should be submitted via AfC, and COI editors should abide by AfC's decision. Elemimele (talk) 09:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting list for the following topic: Video games. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This AfD was improperly placed in the Games deletion sorting, which is for board/card games like it says at the top. Now it's moved to the correct sorting. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Nothing to add to the discussion, the coverage in my WP:BEFORE is almost all routine and dates back to its announcement in 2021. I was able to find this preview/development info piece from PC Gamer [20], but that's where it all ends. Fails to meet WP:GNG at this point and should be in drafts until more pre-release/reviews coverage comes out. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per previous participants. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 14:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify I am ok with letting an article develop in draft space. Positive solution and WP:ATD-I. Lightburst (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify WP:TOOSOON applies. Toddst1 (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify, can be restored when there are some post-release reviews etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. I'm sure that this article will become notable eventually, but WP:TOOSOON applies here, which is something that I have talked about with the creator before. The Night Watch (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. Suggesting TOOSOON isn't appropriate is nonsense, it's routinely invoked. Sergecross73 msg me 21:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify, because why not? Merko (talk) 21:04, 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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mary and Robbs Westwood Cafe[edit]

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

Cafe lacks in-depth coverage in non-local and reliable sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: while the dailybruin article includes an interview in-part; most of the article documents the cafe and amounts to SIGCOV.
There is no indication that dailybruin is not a reliable source. The fact that a source is local is not an issue. Jack4576 (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This cafe set some kind of longevity record by operating in the UCLA neighborhood for 83 years. The KCET source is a pubic broadcasting TV channel in Southern California, and gives an informative write-up about how the cafe has evolved from the 1950s era one-counter soda shop in a drug store, to a full restaurant today. — Maile (talk) 03:43, 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 merge‎ to Interstate 35E (Minnesota). Eddie891 Talk Work 00:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unweave the Weave[edit]

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

Almost entirely sourced to government websites, most of those press releases, as well as 1 SPS. While construction projects can be notable, this one seems run-of-the-mill. Also borders on POV in certain instances. Rschen7754 00:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per above comments Jack4576 (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the history sections of Interstate 694 and Interstate 35E (Minnesota), though some of the information is already present in the Interstate 694 article. It could be added to the I-35E article. In general, I don't think there's a lot of notability for completed construction projects in Minnesota, since I don't regularly see news coverage on projects that have been finished. The I-35W Mississippi River bridge collapse and reconstruction is the level of enduring significance, since it raised awareness of similar fracture-critical bridges, but I can't see the point of having separate articles for every state construction project. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Elkman. Admittedly (as one who loves designing highway exchanges for my geofictional ventures), this is as well-written and organised as AFD candidates get. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:21, 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 Interstate 35W (Minnesota). It's clear there is a consensus to Merge this article but, in the future, please specify what articles you want this content merged to. Comments here were not helpful to base future action on. I was almost going to relist this discussion for another week so that there could be some agreement on the merge targets but a consensus does exist and there is no guarantee that the editors participating in this discussion so far would return and help solidify this closure. So, I will pass along the implementation of this decision to interested editors, assuming they are out there. Liz Read! Talk! 00:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I-35W/US 10/I-694 North Central Corridor Reconstruction Project[edit]

I-35W/US 10/I-694 North Central Corridor Reconstruction Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost entirely sourced to government websites, most of those press releases, as well as 1 SPS. While construction projects can be notable, this one seems run-of-the-mill. Article is also well out of date. Rschen7754 00:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Minnesota. Rschen7754 00:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge information to relevant articles. The interchange project is not notable enough for an individual article but the information can be mentioned in the articles about the roads that meet at the interchange. Dough4872 00:56, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dough4872 Jack4576 (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Dough4872 would be the best solution for this article which, curiously, hasn't been updated to reflect the project is finished.TH1980 (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As per Dough4872. Yasal Shahid (talk) 05:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the relevant sections of the individual articles on Interstate 35W (Minnesota), maybe U.S. Route 10 in Minnesota, and Interstate 694 (though the I-694 article already appears to have reasonable coverage). In general, completed construction projects don't attract lasting notice locally, except for the I-35W Mississippi River bridge or the completed Crosstown Commons project. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now that I look at the I-35W article again, I see there's no mention of this construction project. I'm not sure there needs to be one in the I-35W article. Some of the 35W/10 concurrency was rebuilt in the 2013 project, but it was rebuilt again in the 2019-2021 timeframe as 35W was expanded by a couple lanes with a toll lane added in the middle. That construction project isn't mentioned on Wikipedia. The US-10 article doesn't say anything about the 35W/10/694 project, but maybe it could say just a few sentences about it. The I-694 article's history section has a decent description of the Unweave the Weave and the 35W/10/694 project. Whatever part of the article is merged, I don't think we need to keep the large volume of information detailing when each bridge was rebuilt, how traffic was rerouted, and so on. Only a subset of the "Project background" section needs to be kept. FWIW, I drive a long stretch of Interstate 35W from Bloomington to Blaine on my daily commute. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:24, 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.