Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 21	May 23 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of children of presidents of the United States[edit]

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

Most presidential children are not notable in their own right. Interstellarity (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete – A topic like List of notable children of presidents of the United States is not empty, but would necessarily feel incomplete. The current article has a lot of unsourced material and, in its current form, that would be my argument for deletion. If the presidents' pages include information about children, the sources used to verify that information could most likely be referenced in the list article. For better or worse, the concept of notability by osmosis comes to life here because United States presidents always have book-length biographies and those biographies most always discuss presidential children in enough depth for them to be considered notable in their own right. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seems to be a considerable number of them with articles already: Category:Children of presidents of the United States. Ajf773 (talk) 10:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looks to me that a good number of them have pages or the ability to have pages (e.g., Malia Obama could realistically have one). Also, WP:NLIST is easily met (e.g., the books All the Presidents' Children: Triumph and Tragedy in the Lives of America's First Families and Children Of The Presidents: George Washington to Donald Trump: Includes Legitimate, Illegitimate, Alleged, and Secret Children of Our 45 Presidents). That seems pretty slam dunk keep to me. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Why? I Ask, plus, this article has existed since 2007 and gets almost 300 views per day. Of course the children of the POTUS are notable, precisely for being children of the POTUS. Most may not be sufficiently notable to warrant dedicated articles to them individually, but that’s beside the point. There is always information in RS about the children of the POTUS. Deleting this article would be detrimental to WP. —В²C ☎ 12:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Members of the First Family regularly receive coverage as a group, making this a notable topic. Reywas92^Talk 18:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Why? I Ask, В²C, and Reywas92. Sal2100 (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Why? I Ask Wiki O'Ryan (talk) 06:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article does seem to pass WP:NLIST with reliable sources (as mentioned by Why? I Ask). ULPS (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Final Fight (video game). I assume this is the correct Merge target. Please be specific when requesting a Redirect or Merge. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guy (Final Fight)[edit]

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

Sane with Robert Garcia (Art of Fighting). This is just another minor character clearly fails WP:GNG. Despite being written long, sources were mostly from trivia mentions and listicles. Showing zero WP:SIGCOV afterall as per WP:BEFORE. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 22:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per failed WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV Blitzfan51 the manager 14:07, 23 May (UTC)
Merge I will admit part of the problem of finding sources is due to his name, but even then after extensive looking I found nothing, and what's there is flimsy.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:53, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consultant Orthodontists Group[edit]

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

Not the type of "Place of Interest" that belongs to Wikipedia. No references either. Citations101 (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. a mere 2 gnews hits. No indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, couldn't find any sources for the page. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 00:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:ORG. ULPS (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find any sources, there are none in the article and this AfD process hasn't unearthed any so far. /Julle (talk) 21:22, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Trepanier[edit]

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

The article only provides one source for the subject’s biography, which is a web article from HotRod.com. This source may not be considered reliable or independent, as it is a website that focuses on automotive topics and may have a conflict of interest or bias towards the subject. The article does not provide any other sources that cover the subject’s life, career, achievements, awards, or impact. Therefore, the article may not show that the subject meets the notability criteria for people. DarklarkOxs (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DarklarkOxs (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SK#2 as a bad faith revenge nomination. The deletion rationale also appears to have been written by ChatGPT. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Striking as an editor in good standing has voted delete. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per 192.76.8.94, as ZeroGPT detects the text as being 93.41% likely to be AI generated. In addition, nom is currently softblocked for talk page vandalism.
WhichUser AmI 21:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was not blocked for talkpage vandalisim, I was falsly blocked for asking someone something on their talkpage DarklarkOxs (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no revenge/bad faith, I literily clicked random article and saw this was poorly sourced. DarklarkOxs (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I was able to find several sources which establish reliability about this individual, and believe the article could be expanded upon as such. See |1 |2 |3 |4 WhichUser AmI 21:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The second and third refs returned 404 errors. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A. B. I've fixed the links. WhichUserAmI had made a mistake in the wiki markup and accidentally added an extra pipe character to the end of the urls [1].

@WhichUserAmI You only need to use a pipe character when making internal links. for external links you use a space to separate the url from the text you want the link to display. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ or at least pause this one for consideration. The nom is apparently in bad faith, but this is a pretty sparse BLP that I'd like to investigate further. As it stands at the moment, the sourcing is not sufficient. Note that this renders Speedy Keep criteria #2 moot. Zaathras (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on its merits since speedy keep is no longer an option. This person and their creations seem to have received multiple full length pieces of coverage in reliable sources, see [2] [3] [4], for example. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
# 1 is essentially the blogger portion of a car sale website, # 2 is an article about the car, and only mentions the person in passing, # 3 is the lone source already cited in the article. If one can even call a stub an article. Zaathras (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first source doesn't appear to be a blog to me. It appears to employ proper editorial staff, and most the writers I checked appear to have experience writing for decent publications or other reporting experience. The stuff submitted by readers is clearly marked up as such and it attributed to "ClassicCars.com Guest Contributor", e.g. [5]. The author of the piece I linked, Larry Edsall, spent a decade as an editor of AutoWeek and appears to have published more than a dozen books - it's not like it's some random person writing on blogger.

Yes, the second article is about a car he built. I don't think we have a standalone notability criteria for hotrod builders, but the notability criteria for creative persons, WP:CREATIVE, includes the person's work receiving critical attention as an indicator of notability. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural speedy keep due to bad faith nomination. No prejudice to anybody looking into it further and renominating it properly if they think that is justified. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note. I closed as speedy keep another disruptive nomination by the OP, but chose to leave this one open. Recommend it proceed with no weight given to the OP given subsequent delete commentary. Courcelles (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not terribly well-sourced, but the one source given, Hot Rod magazine, appears to be an RS as part of the Motor Trend stable/ Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Agreed with all editors involved. CastJared (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I find more sources about the vehicles he builds rather than him [6], [7]. I guess he's notable, individual cars rarely are, so the notability goes to the builder. Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We're now up to 8 references, many of which are more about the cars rather than the man, and the article body is all of 3 choppy sentences. Is this about proving a point? Because it doesn't seem like an actual biographical article is being written here. Zaathras (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
many of which are more about the cars rather than the man Yes, I addressed this above. I think the most appropriate notability guideline to apply here is WP:CREATIVE, which states a person in a creative profession is notable if The person's work (or works) has: ... (c) won significant critical attention. His car builds have received coverage in motoring related journalism and have won awards, this implies he has received critical attention and is therefore notable.

the article body is all of 3 choppy sentences the content in or state of the article does not determine notability. WP:ARTN.

Is this about proving a point? Why have you immediately jumped to assumptions of bad faith? Once you voted delete I did a few searches and very quickly found multiple full length pieces of coverage of his work, implying he was notable, and accordingly provided a few example links while voting keep. 192.76.8.86 (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Yet no article improvement. Why is that? Zaathras (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)~~ - moot. Zaathras (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the state of the article is completely irrelevant to determining whether the subject of the article is notable (WP:ARTN)? Because notability is determined by what sourcing exists, not what is present in the article (WP:NEXIST)? Because Perfection is not required and Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. are part of the core editing policy (WP:IMPERFECT)? Because the point of AFD is to evaluate whether a topic is suitable for inclusion, not to improve pages (WP:NOTCLEANUP)? Because you have no right whatsoever to make demands on how other volunteers should spend their time (WP:NOTCOMPULSORY)? 192.76.8.86 (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment x2 As there appears to be no chance of deletion, I am striking the lone delete vote, i.e. mine, so that the inevitable will not be prolonged. The filer certainly nominated this article in bad faith, but circumstances have now devolved into the project being saddled with keeping a sub-par article. That is regrettable. Zaathras (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep - article has been improved, and now is a viable stub. Suggest we close this AfD soon. PhilKnight (talk) 21:21, 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 speedy keep‎. Courcelles (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

North of England cricket team[edit]

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

The article did not show that the team has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The only sources you provided were CricketArchive and Scores & Biographies, which are not considered reliable or independent for this purpose. You also did not provide any context or history of the team, or explain why it is notable or relevant. DarklarkOxs (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. DarklarkOxs (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SK#2 as a bad faith revenge nomination. The deletion rationale also appears to have been written by ChatGPT. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per 192.76.8.94 and above AfD discussion.
WhichUser AmI 21:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and England. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pits (card game)[edit]

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

The article is clearly not notable. It was created in 2005, but still cites no WP:RS. The only reference is to the webpage of the original article creator, Stephen George Bailey. It is not listed in any major sources like Parlett or McLeod (pagat.com) and the only online references cite the same web page by Bailey. Unless WP:RS can be found it should be deleted. Bermicourt (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, couldn't find any reliable sources online. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 01:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Boardgame Geek and the like, nothing found in RS. Lots of instructions on how to play, nothing we can use for wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 00:29, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rider Game[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Most of the refs are download sites and the only reviews are trivial media sources listing games available.Fails WP:GNG. Searches found nothing better. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article does not violate the deletion criteria because it shows that the game has some notability and has received some coverage in reliable sources. The game has over 100 million downloads on Google Play and over 50 million downloads on the App Store, which indicates that it has a large and active fanbase. The game has also been reviewed by some reputable websites, such as Pocket Gamer and Common Sense Media, which provide some analysis and criticism of the game. The game has also been featured on some online platforms, such as GamePix and Kiz10, which provide some information and gameplay of the game.

Therefore, I think this article meets the WP:GNG and WP:ENT criteria for notability and should not be deleted. DarklarkOxs (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article does not violate the deletion criteria because it shows that the game has some notability and has received some coverage in reliable sources. The game has over 100 million downloads on Google Play and over 50 million downloads on the App Store, which indicates that it has a large and active fanbase. The game has also been reviewed by some reputable websites, such as Pocket Gamer and Common Sense Media, which provide some analysis and criticism of the game. The game has also been featured on some online platforms, such as GamePix and Kiz10, which provide some information and gameplay of the game.

Therefore, I think this article meets the WP:GNG and WP:ENT criteria for notability and should not be deleted. DarklarkOxs (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you using ChatGPT to write these comments? How is WP:ENT, the notability criteria for entertainers, relevant here? 192.76.8.94 (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I came to the same conclusion as the nominator. Incidentally, the reference to a review supposedly in Pocket Gamer appears to be fictitious - the link did not lead to a review of the game, and the site's search tool didn't come up with any mention of it. Dorsetonian (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is changed now DarklarkOxs (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Dorsetonian (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.commonsensemedia.org/app-reviews/rider This is a cited review site that is not a trivial media DarklarkOxs (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this discussion is over, correct? I will go ahead and fix the article. DarklarkOxs (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the discussion is not over. commonsensemedia.org appears to be a website that allows any random person to create an account and submit reviews. That sort of website is not usable as a reliable source. I suggest you pause and take a breath for a short time before you wind up blocked, as your scattershot article creation and frantic attacks on an administrator are generating more heat than light. Zaathras (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, staff reviews from Common Sense Media are reliable. See WP:CSM. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dorsetonian and frantic bad faith nominations by DarklarkOxs, the article's author. WhichUser AmI 21:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is it possible for the article creator to post the correct link to the page? It does not lead to the right review. If the creator cannot come up with several reliable sourced reviews, then this page fails GNG criteria. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable as an individual game and too generic a name for it to be worth redirecting to Ketchapp. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most sources are non-reliable. Those which might be RS are low-quality. Does not appear to be Wiki-notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Complete failure of the GNG, no SIGCOV to be seen. Ravenswing 23:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just the fact that it is seemingly written by AI should be enough to be a reason to delete, but there are no good sources. The Pocket Gamer source, which would be a RS, is for a totally different game, thus has been fabricated. Just snow delete it at this point. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: This user has been blocked indefinitely for WP:NOTHERE. --ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 00:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Correction, this user was created before being blocked indefinitely, G5 is not applicable, but the article does not comply with WP:GNG, so delete. ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 01:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable and fails GNG. To make matters worse, uses a made-up source. Schminnte (talk • contribs)
Delete this ridiculous article about a flavor-of-the-month hypercasual game. The sourcing is just not there, so there is no indicator of notability. I also strongly oppose redirecting to Ketchapp or any other article. Merko (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's almost no coverage, with the only RS in the article being a fake link. Weird stuff. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Agreed with all editors involved. What about article Lofe? CastJared (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Will oppose redirecting to Ketchapp. CastJared (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Creator has been blocked, this is another one of their bad pages. Probably written by AI, no sources, many issues. ULPS (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Difficult to search for due to its extremely generic name, but I failed to find any sourcing that would indicate notability under WP:NSOFT. The only coverage I was able to find were blogs, seo paid placement stuff and user generated content. 192.76.8.86 (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: According to [8], DarklarkOxs [9] is suspected as the sock of Masterofroblox, and G5 may apply. --Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 10:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Devoke water 14:05, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lofe[edit]

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

Article about a Youtuber or content creator that doesn't meet our WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV criteria. Jamiebuba (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Jamiebuba (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all primary and WP:USERG sources.

WhichUser AmI 21:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am aware, fixing it now — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarklarkOxs (talk • contribs) 20:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all the sources are social media. Nothing reliable, nothing independent. Fails WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
there are no sources apart from that, there are many wikipedia pages withought citing, they don't get deleted. The thing to do is tag the page to say it needs citing DarklarkOxs (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Needs citing"? Do you have any citing other than social media?? Citations101 (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have searched the internet and nowhere else has information except unreliable sites and social media DarklarkOxs (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There you go! That means it's too soon to be featured on Wikipedia. Citations101 (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which means -- drum roll -- that the subject is not notable. Ravenswing 23:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

if there are pages without citations, please tag them so we can review or delete them as needed. Oaktree b (talk) 00:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. these alone don't belong to wikipedia! Citations101 (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the author's admission that the subject cannot be referenced other than to unreliable sites and social media. WP:NN. Dorsetonian (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the high subscriber count may be enough to save this from {{db-web}} speedy deletion, but that does not provide actual notability. That requires in-depth independent reliable sourcing, which we see none of in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article's author said it best, there is no information from reliable sources. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. ULPS (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What a weird article. From the Google News search it seems that Lofe is very, very, very minimally notable for "pranking" Ray Allen by making annoying fart noises while he was trying to do his shopping. (I'm not sure that this actually counts as a prank but that is the word the sources use.) This incident has a very, very, very little low quality news coverage from celebrity gossip sites and appears to be Lofe's sole claim to fame. Despite this, it isn't even mentioned in the article. Anyway, adding it wouldn't help much. It would fail WP:BLP1E even if we counted it as being 1E, which it isn't really, and it doesn't even come close to WP:SIGCOV. Allen's article doesn't mention it and no other article links here at all. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All sources are non-reliable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Utter failure of GNG, WP:V. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravenswing (talk • contribs) **0
~~Speedy Delete: This user has been blocked indefinitely for WP:NOTHERE. --ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 00:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete: Correction, this user was created before being blocked indefinitely, G5 is not applicable, but the article does not comply with WP:GNG, so delete. ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 01:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Agreed with all editors involved. CastJared (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable, all sources are user-generated. No evidence of passing GNG. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 11:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like an interesting fellow, no sources found for him in RS. Nothing at all really, some blog mentions it looks like. Oaktree b (talk) 00:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't find any coverage in reliable sources. Merko (talk) 01:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only citations are to YouTube and Instagram. That's it. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete. I agree with DanielRigal's findings - the only event I can find reliable sources covering them in relation to is the Ray Allen "prank", at best this is a WP:BLP1E. There are no third party sources in the article, and the creator has admitted that third party coverage doesn't exist. I would argue for a WP:SNOW deletion here, as it is obvious that this is going to have no outcome other than deletion. 192.76.8.86 (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: According to [10], DarklarkOxs [11] is suspected as the sock of Masterofroblox, and G5 may apply. --Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG -- Devoke water 15:06, 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons[edit]

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

I believe this page should be deleted because no clear consensus has been formed on what its purpose should be. It has numerous issues that have persisted over the years, and a variety of editors have created conflicting and confusing edits and redirects. In addition, this page is highly repetitive with numerous other pages that list and discuss D&D monsters in various contexts.

I originally wrote this page to be a holistic explanation of D&D monsters--an attempt to create a high-level overview. As an example, the page currently includes some discussion of the belief that monster-fighting is itself "sociopathic." This discussion is not about any specific monster per se, but rather the concept of fighting monsters to gain experience. At the time I created the page, this discussion seemed noteworthy but did not clearly fit in existing pages.

However, it is clear that the D&D pages are organized differently, and this page does not fit into the overall D&D project. This page has created more problems than it has solved, and I believe its existence lowers the quality and clarity of all D&D pages. The talk page for this article is, in my view, a record of this article's confused purpose, the errors it's generated, etc.

Attempts have been made to fix these problems through edits, but this has resulted in stagnant editor conflicts while the article itself has only gotten worse--less clarity of purpose, more confusing edits, etc. So I propose deleting outright.

My rationale in bullet point:

This page is redundant and harmful to the overall D&D project
It was not created by consensus or by the D&D project to solve any particular problems; rather, it was created by one editor (me) who now thinks it has done more harm than good
The problems with this page are uncontroversial: it has a variety of issue tags that have not been contested nor addressed
Failure to achieve clarity/consensus on the page purpose has made it a magnet for WP:LISTCRUFT
Attempts to fix through editing and discussion have failed. Anything salvageable would be better achieved through WP:BLOWITUP

Geethree (talk) 19:20, 22 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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While there are certainly things I don't like about this article, such as the maintenance tags, the topic is clearly notable and fixable problems are not a reason for deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like Pppery I think the topic is clearly notable and very relevant. I does have issues, but that is not a reason for deletion as they can be solved by normal editing - although that editing will involve a lot of work. I think it is far from perfect, but still a lot better than having no treatment of this topic, so I do not at all think it hurts the project. I did not percieve a stagnant edit conflict, but I am sorry if I did generate that impression when I undid a large good faith trimming effort, because I have thought then and still think now that useful content had been cut out together with overly detailed content. The current state is to a significant degree a result of a great number of decisions over a number of years not to have a number of sub-topic articles, leading to cover them here as the parent topic. I still think this article can work fine in a two-partite way which we more or less already have in place: A general discussion of the topic (currently headings 1-3) and a collection of relevant monsters which are yet not notable enough for a stand-alone article and do not have a more fitting place (currently heading 4-6). Some secondary source to help improve both parts have already been collected. Daranios (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Games. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion is not a substitute for discussion, and this does not address the amount of work that has gone into making this whole topic less bad over the past decade. Look at "what links here" and you begin to see this is not a typical article, or even a typical list article. Jclemens (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I would not be averse to creating a project-space draft alternative to propose for substitution for the current content. BD2412 T 03:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the comments above - no problems here are unsurmountable. BOZ (talk) 04:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Agreed with all editors involved. CastJared (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NOTCLEANUP. This article needs heavy removal of plotcruft, especially of minor monsters. But the subject of D&D's monsters is notable overall and has been discussed in reliable sources. I don't see the benefit of deletion here. Sorry, but "this page could be fixed but I'm too lazy to" is not a convincing argument, stop kicking the can down the road. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This feels like ownership behavior ("it was created by one editor (me)"). I think many of this article's issues stem from it being a target for merged content from other deleted articles. But in general, this type of conversation on a scope & structure should have started at either the article's talk page or at the relevant project talk page (echoing above that AfD shouldn't be used to trigger cleanup).Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sariel Xilo: In fairness, such a discussion had been started at Talk:Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons#Cruft removal, it just stagnated after not producing a solution equally accepted by everyone, or something like that. Daranios (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend to claim ownership and I apologize if it came off that way. Rather, I wanted to add context that this page did not originate as a community project, was not intended to solve a consensus problem or gap, etc. I do still believe it would be better to start over and establish a stronger, more clear foundation, but I am happy to defer to consensus. It's clear my approach is a distinct minority. Geethree (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Due to multiple deletions/mergers/redirects from a number of other articles and lists, this current article is certainly a complete hodge-podge mess. But, the notability of the topic itself is pretty clear. And I don't believe this is a case where a WP:TNT argument is justified, since most of the actual cleanup can be done simply by deleting a lot of the unsourced or non-notable lists that are scattered throughout it. Just for example, it seems like when the old Fiend (Dungeons & Dragons) article was merged into this one, it was simply copied and pasted over in its entirety, resulting in a random list of non-notable creatures with no non-primary sources appearing in the middle of the article - removing things like that is pretty simple, and would go a long way to improving the article to decent shape. Rorshacma (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (cleanup): I think the original idea of an article as a high-level overview is a good one. Needs edits to better fit the lede and purpose but that can be done.SomeoneDreaming (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It seems that, as others noted, this needs cleanup and de-cruftigying from some too inclusive mergers in the past. But why blow it up? The topic was and is notable, isn't it?
_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There might be work to be done, but the topic is notable and this is hardly WP:TNT material. /Julle (talk) 21:26, 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 no consensus‎. – Joe (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stepove, Synelnykove Raion, Dnipropetrovsk Oblast[edit]

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

Contested draftification without improvement. Not a single in-depth source so fails WP:GNG, and no sourcing to show this meets WP:GEOLAND. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: my searches in Ukrainian and Russian did not turn up any in-depth sources. The only useful source I can find is this order of the Presidium of the UkSSR "On Preservation of Historical Names and Clarification and Arrangement of Existing Names of Village Councils and Settlements of Dnipropetrovska Oblast". Also, if the article is kept, it should be renamed, because the title is ambiguous with the other (currently populated) village of Stepove in Synelnykove Raion (the naming issue arose following the merger of Pokrovske Raion into Synelnykove in 2015). Akakievich (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The locality appears in Apple Maps, Google Maps,[12], Bing Maps.[13] It is recorded as an existing named place, and they must have got it from some geographical database, presumably from Ukraine’s official data (I can find nothing to confirm it right now: as far as I can tell, Ukrainian public topographic resources are restricted because of the invasion). —Michael Z. 23:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that the history of it, including its abandonment is unfinished. Not that there is a lack of proof it exists LuxembourgBoy42 (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep, barely The Russian version of the article cites the ukase mentioned above and also cites a map which does show the town as it once existed. The other key datum (the date of founding) is uncited but probably could be turned up by a determined researcher with better Russian than I have. The apparent story is of a village set up in the salad days of the Supreme Soviet, which was eventually renamed after its collapse into something a bit more like a real town name, and which went away some years back for reasons unknown. All of this would constitute OR if it were to be added to the article, but I feel there is just barely enough as it is to justify keeping something. I have no opinion on the renaming suggestion. Mangoe (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the 2 keep !votes are not based on policy, since neither points to an official source actually showing it is a legally recognized place.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is an ukase not an official source? Mangoe (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bruxton (talk) 04:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ I won't oppose a Delete at this time, and let it be recreated if/when WP:GNG is met - I was able to find sources that apparently attest to the village's existance and abandoned status. I'm not from the area and cannot be 100% sure of the validity of the sources, but assume they exist in good faith until otherwise proven. Invinting @Akakievich and Onel5969: to weigh in. Rkieferbaum (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the tag. My logic is as follows: in order to satisfy WP:GEOLAND, a source is needed which discusses Stepove when it was inhabited. I haven't been able to find a single detail about Steopve during this period – if you find anything, please share it, because it would change my view.

Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history.

In order to satisfy WP:GNG, an in-depth source is required, which I likewise haven't found. Akakievich (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Verifiability is met but notability is not. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 13:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: on basis of comments by Mangoe. Notability also bolstered by the reliable source pointing toward this village being contested during the Ukraine war, this is enough for GNG. Jack4576 (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you link to the "reliable source pointing toward this village being contested during the Ukraine war"? I can't find it on either this page or the article in question. Thanks, Akakievich (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, listed here as a recognised settlement (ID UA12140050130089429) within Velykomykhailivka rural hromada and thus passes WP:GEOLAND.

Mupper-san (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GEOLAND makes provisions only for populated places, therefore I'm not sure it's applicable here. Akakievich (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Akakievich - I think that the following sentence applies here: "Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history." Since this village is abandoned, and apparently legally-recognised according to the ukaz that you mentioned above, I believe that WP:GEOLAND still applies, though I'm unsure as I don't know if there exists any proof that the recognition overlapped with the period in which it was populated, or if such a thing is important (though I'd imagine so).

Mupper-san (talk) 04:30, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenDict[edit]

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

Prodded, then restored, currently not enough sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:VERIFY, and searches did not turn up enough to show it meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not seeing anything which would show meeting GNG nor NSOFTWARE. Ping Shenlebantongying who requested this be undeleted. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 20:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are so ___MANY___ softwares on wikipedia pages mainly citing the main website marked as something something something. What's wrong with that? Unless there are a lot of dramas involved with the software, then all of them won't have a lot of citations from else where.

There are a lot of mentions on web and some papaers on google scholar, but they are mostly unrelated to be part of wiki.

Why you are so hurry? Not everyone have time to edit wiki like you. Just wait. slbtty (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's been 5 days and still no updates. I'm not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure PROMO. Best source I could find was the MacRuorsForum, which isn't acceptable sourcing, then it falls off a cliff. Delete for lack of any kind of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 02:12, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caius Titus (senator)[edit]

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

Some debate that this may be a hoax.[14] I cannot say it is certainly a hoax, as the name may be properly Gaius Titus, which may possibly refer to Titus Quinctius Flamininus based on a source I placed on the talk page. Yet, if it is about Flamininus then we have a much better article on him, and there is literally nothing here we can merge as it is all uncited. No good source links the Latin phrase to him either. Thus this should just be deleted. It is either a hoax or else it is an ill informed duplicate of an existing page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is certainly a hoax. T8612 (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article describes someone prominent in the senate, a shaper of Roman legislation, etc, not the victor of the Second Macedonian War Titus Quinctius Flamininus. It is bizarre that we could describe someone as having "left an indelible mark on the Senate and the governance of the Roman Republic" without any direct evidence for their existence. Strikingly, apart from "Caius Titus (born 2nd century BCE)" we are given no names, dates, events, legislation, causes, family - no substance at all. The citation for him creating a proverb fails; that book does not include the proverb at all, not in the online search[15] or at the page[16] added by this article's creator to the citation at Verba volant, scripta manent 5 days ago[17] while creating this article. NebY (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The speedy tag should have been accepted. Also, the hoax seems to have spread to other language Wikipedias years ago, maybe we should contact them.★Trekker (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- To add, even if this isn't an intentional hoax, the person clearly isn't historical, "Caius Titus" is not a plausible name for a Roman senator of the middle Republic, it's made out of two praenomina one of which uses a very archaic spelling (Caius instead of Gaius).★Trekker (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We might expect to find "Caius" in reference sources, however—it was a typical rendering up to recently, and still might be found in works of a non-specialist nature. Gaius Titius would be a plausible name, although I don't think we know of anyone of that name who would match this description; the fact that the proverb was previously attributed to the emperor Titus, then changed to this improbable name by an anonymous IP editor without explanation—a figure who just a few days ago became an important historical figure with his own article, not sourced to any known Roman writer or modern historian—is what marks it out as a hoax to me. P Aculeius (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article was created out of whole cloth by an editor whose only other contributions have also been hoaxes: 1) the citation to a source that apparently doesn't contain it (attributed to this person, who was added to that article by an anonymous IP editor, who changed it from Titus, the emperor, without explanation or source), and 2) phony embellishment of a quotation from a letter by James Clerk Maxwell to his uncle. This name is obviously wrong, and the lack of any detail apart from the bogus attribution of an aphorism that may or may not be Roman shows that it's made up. P Aculeius (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Likely a WP:HOAX, or at the very least an article that is factually incorrect. ULPS (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Ifly6 (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Fox[edit]

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

No indication of being notable. Refs are a mix of 404's, profiles and blog entries for what is a WP:BLP. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 14:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and California. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per current standards. Jehochman ^Talk 16:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I find are articles about the CEO of Jack in the Box, who shares the same name as this individual. Nothing found for sourcing for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 10:22, 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 merge‎ to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weevil (Torchwood)[edit]

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

Fictional alien race that has not met notability standards since its creation. Fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens. I found no evidence that the subject is independently notable. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:ATD. Not independently notable. Archrogue (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - In Universe cruft. Carrite (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect not very important or iconic Whoniverse monster Dronebogus (talk) 11:01, 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 redirect‎ to Transformers: Prime#Cast and characters. – Joe (talk) 07:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Knock Out (Transformers: Prime)[edit]

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

Article is laking any WP:SIGCOV. It relies mostly on primary and CBR sources. Most are either listicles, rankings and passing mentions. WP:BEFORE shows nothing but full of trivial CBR sources. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 13:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing but trivial mentions from CBR. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. This suggests some serious commentary, once we get through the first half of the reception, which indeed is very listicle-ish. That said, this is like the only decent source I am seeing right now. Do ping me if more is found, particularly something academic would be nice. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CBR is a content farm, they write about literally everything and actively look for the most obscure characters. A character appearing there does not indicate wider notoriety, just SEO optimization to get pageviews. If I had a nickel for everyone who breathlessly pointed to CBR/ScreenRant/GameRant as proof that <insert really minor character> is obviously notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's an independent reliable source that covers this, and many other topics, in non-trivial detail. Notability != special, notability == we have enough to write a decent article about it. Your non-policy-based objection is non-encyclopedic. Jclemens (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm IMHO, CBR seems to have varying levels of content, from listicles and garbage that might as well be ChatGPT generated to decent pieces (like the one I linked). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Sexuality and gender. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transformers: Prime#Cast and characters, where he's mentioned. No indication of standalone notability at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect “very weak keep” is as good as delete, and redirects are cheap Dronebogus (talk) 11:01, 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 delete‎ based in part on the consensus reached in the last discussion and no suggestion that notability has since been established. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Free Republic of Nias[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted, the sourcing is dubious and unreliable (see the previous AfD discussion). Already covered somewhere else and only exist for a very brief amount of time and not notable as its immediatly transfered to Japanese control. Nyanardsan (talk) 06:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Nyanardsan (talk) 06:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hard Delete - my mistake! Initially i've would have thought that this page could be revived with better sourcing via translation from the corresponding indonesian wiki. but i've come to a realization that there was the deletion discussion before (and that there was little to cite), thanks for the info!

i'd allow the deletion of this page. Kaliper1 (talk) 06:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps creating a redirect to Gunungsitoli#Mid-to-late 20th century or Nias#World War II would encourage later contributions to be added to those sections. CMD (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since it was so short lived, its notability should be judged as an episode in history involving several significant events, rather as a republic. However, too much of the article relies on an Indonesian-language source that seems WP:FRINGE based on what Davidelit said in the previous AfD. I have asked Wikiproject Indonesia to take a look. small jars tc 18:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If not a hoax or fringe theory, seems an encyclopedia-worthy topic with adequate sourcing to pass GNG. Sourcing is in Indonesian, however. I do not find the previous close as Delete to be compelling. Carrite (talk) 15:07, 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. ✗plicit 13:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Mannan (indian politician)[edit]

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

Non-notable politician, fails WP:NPOL. Yasal Shahid (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Yasal Shahid (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass NPOL and borderline G10. Mccapra (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete municipal councillor is not notable, unless GNG is met. I can't find anything for this person.Oaktree b (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:11, 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 redirect‎ to GoldenPalace.com. ✗plicit 13:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln fry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted and recreated with no basis. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform, and there is no indication of why this hoax is important. Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Doesn't qualify for Unusual eBay listings since it was sold on Yahoo. See the similar and removed Among Us chicken nugget. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Food and drink, and Advertising. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to GoldenPalace.com, I guess. Doesn't seem like there's that much we can say about it, and I've added a line to that article which mentions it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would a merge to/mention in Super Bowl commercials be appropriate? Jclemens (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to GoldenPalace.com per Rhododendrites. Brief promotional campaign without any lasting reception. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems fine, interesting tidbit, nothing notable by itself. Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 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 Keep per WP:SNOW‎. (non-admin closure) Bruxton (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minikillers[edit]

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

WP:OR. There was one, very obscure short film "The Mini-Killers". The claims about the series of 4 and the tank station use can apparently only be found at a youtube video (in itself probably a copyvio of the copyright owners of the movie) from a channel with 135 subscribers, with as far as I can tell a total lack of reliability. Removing these claims would leave a very short stub about a short film which received hardly any attention. A redirect to Diana Rigg may be a good WP:ATD. Fram (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Germany, Spain, and England. Fram (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also can't find any source for the petrol station bit. Some coverage exists, but always saying it is very obscure. Redirect to the actress, perhaps cover as a footnote to her filmography. —Kusma (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Thank you for your input, but I feel that the above reason for deletion, like the Proposal for Deletion, is based on cursory research. Yes, these films are obscure, they are poor quality, and Rigg herself may have regarded them as an embarrassment. But ...
- That there are four short films, not one, can easily be confirmed from any number of sources, including Rigg's biography, a Google books version of which I linked on the talk page of the article, or the Avengers book I linked on the same talk page, or any other number of web sites, including IMDb. One can find graphics of the original promotional material online.
- That the title is Minikillers, without a hyphen, is also easily checked, although some sources do indeed give "Mini-Killers" or even "Mini Killers".
- The number of subscribers of that youtube channel is entirely irrelevant. The videos are variously available on Youtube from a number of channels, as a simple search would confirm. Copyright claims regarding these films from 1969 should be made by the copyright owners themselves, not by third parties.
- It is quite true that the claim that it was used in petrol stations is difficult to confirm from other sources, so we may need to qualify that. For example Rigg's biography (which I linked in the previous discussion with Fram) claims that the origin of the four films is a complete mystery. The director and writers of this film seem to be completely obscure people, and apparently did not make any other materials than this.
- I don't think that this topic would be a useful addition to the article on Diana Rigg, even though she is the star of the films, any more than any other film should be kept in the actor's biography. For example, would the plot or the cast of "Minikillers" belong there? I don't think so.
- Most of Wikipedia's movie articles are not very substantial and mostly consist of the plot and the cast of the movie, and since this article doesn't yet feature either the plot or cast, the lack of content as a reason for deletion isn't valid in my opinion. Adding a plot to this article poses the small problem of trying to work out what the plot actually is, of course. I appreciate the prodding from Fram to improve this article by adding the plot and cast.

Thank you again most kindly for your input. Mains Olsen (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a plot and cast section to the film as well as clarifying the origin somewhat and correcting an error about the film. Mains Olsen (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"That there are four short films, not one, can easily be confirmed from any number of sources, including Rigg's biography" I have now checked that book multiple times, and all I see are references to Mini-Killers as one film: "[...] the silent short films Das Diadem and The Mini-Killers.[...] Both films were shot [...] It consisted of four parts: Operation Costa Brava, Heroin, Macabre, and Flamenco." It goes on to describe it as a film, not four films, and discusses a press piece which promotes it as a film, not four films. So, a film in four parts, not four films. Imdb, archive.org, youtube, ... aren't reliable sources.

The youtube source is a) not a reliable source, and should for that reason not be included at all, and b) a probable copyright violation, and Wikipedia policy is not to link to such, no matter whether the actual copyright holders care or not. Claims which you can only source to unreliable sources (like the youtube video) shouldn't be "qualified", they should be completely removed, they have no place in our articles at all. You have since added another claim, sourced to a comment underneath a blog post.[18] Please read WP:RS thoroughly and stop using such sources or basing anything in articles on it. It just isn't acceptable.

With films this obscure, where so little is reliably known about them, it is better to redirect them to the main filmography of Riggs than to write a speculative, poorly sourced article. Fram (talk) 07:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your very thorough interest in this article. Here is a photograph of the original film packages, from a collector blog in Dutch, showing that there are four separate films. But this is already clear by skimming through the youtube video. It's four separate episodes in one video as you can see from the credits rolling, and that is described in the biography, which again you're disputing, saying "it consisted of four parts". Yes we do need better sources, that is not a reason to delete an article. Mains Olsen (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even that blog literally says that it is one film... In any case, more blogs or unreliable sources won´t help in keeping this as a separate article. Fram (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for responding. What a wonderful conversation this is turning out to be. The blog uses the Dutch plural form films in its first sentence, right above the photograph showing four films in four boxes. You've also repeatedly insisted that the youtube video is a copyright violation, without any evidence that the films are in copyright. But thank you indeed muchly for responding. You are a self-assured correspondent, and you cannot be said to be lacking in self-confidence with your very bold and yet strikingly counterfactual statements. I wish you the very best of fortune. Mains Olsen (talk) 10:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid personalising this discussion. The issue at hand here is mostly that there are very few reliable sources talking about the film(s), so there is precious little to use to write about them without engaging in WP:OR or reporting speculation from blogs or random youtube channels. There are some sources mentioned in the book I linked to above, perhaps you should try to find those to see if there is further reliable information that would allow us to make a more informed decision. —Kusma (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to take this opportunity to very lavishly and most humbly apologise for commenting personally on the above-mentioned most greatly esteemed correspondent. This conversation should be considered an educational model for future Wiki-discussions if nothing else. To business. Let us glean some facts in the midst of fog. The article in its current, admittedly paltry, state already contains more referencing from reliable sources, such as Diana Rigg's published biography, than literally tens of thousands of other film articles on Wikipedia, such as The Deceiver (film), which has only one reference, or Riders of Destiny, which is completely unreferenced. You yourself point to a reliable source and yet you claim that there are not enough reliable sources. Would I yet again be straying into the abyss of erroneous behaviour which I previously did if I were to be so bold as to point out that this might be considered a contradiction, if only by the extremely unkind, not to say martinets and pedants? The case for deleting the article seems extremely weak and becomes weaker, as if perchance you had been "hoist by your own petard" in the immortal words of the Bard of Stratford-upon-Avon, by the very fact that you yourself have pointed out reliable sources for the article? Does a mind so mighty that it can encompass all of these contradictions exist, or must we await the awakening of an artificial form of intelligence, superior to the mere human brain, which can muster the sheer brainpower necessary to cut this Gordian knot? Until the arrival of such a fortunate beast, the decision is yours, my very good and faithful Wiki-friends. I wish you all possible wisdom, courage and fortitude necessary for this endeavour. God speed you! Mains Olsen (talk) 11:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source I found is a one-sentence mention that confirms that the thing exists, not that it satisfies the general or film-specific notability guidelines. It is highly likely that we have articles on hundreds of films that do not meet these criteria, but those articles are not under discussion here. See WP:OSE. Anyway, back to this article: I still think mentioning this as a footnote in Diana Rigg's article is the best way forward at the moment, but this is fairly decent. Happy to defer to people more experienced in 1960s films on whether a standalone article is merited. —Kusma (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the article to remove the most blatantly unreliable sources and claims not matching the single truly reliable source. Posting these issues here clearly didn't help, perhaps things will get clearer this way. Fram (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 2 books on top of the Googlebooks link above, the sources on the page, and this would tend to prove this is really notable. Also, I would like to point out that the actress's surname is obviously Rigg not Riggs...— MY, OH, MY! 13:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the two book mentions (and other sources) and after crafting a few Google searches, this gets a fairly significant mention in The Telegraph [19]: round the same time she made the obscure foreign shorts – The Diadem and Mini-Killers, made in 1966 and 69 respectively – which played up to the sex bomb persona. Indeed, these shorts could be seen as unofficial Avengers episodes .... Distributed on 8mm, there’s a psychedelic, sleazy quality to them, and “So far, nobody has come forward with an explanation of how either Das Diadem or The Mini-Killers came into being or how Rigg became involved with the projects,” wrote biographer Kathleen Tracy., and Mini-Killers, made in Spain, looks like a bit more cash behind it .... It’s in colour, and has Bond-like aspirations with its exotic locales. The story is told in four parts: slinking around in various Sixties styles .... Rigg investigates a group of assassins who use a killer doll that sprays a poison from its eyes (Q Branch, this is not)., and Mini-Killers directed by Wolfgang von Chmielewski, who was from the German TV station WDR, and co-starred José Nieto and Jack Rocha, who appeared in Spanish exploitation flicks. Versions of Mini-Killers range between 28 and 42 minutes, depending on if you're watching a slightly sped-up version. Skynxnex (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - IMO the sources identified above are adequate to show that the subject meets WP:GNG. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per point 2 of WP:NFIC and the sources identified above. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of tango music labels[edit]

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

This was previously nominated for deletion in 2008 as part of a broad discussion of all similar list articles. I don't advocate that, but this list in particular is poorly sourced and has few links to existing articles. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, Latin America, and Argentina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Complete failure of WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication that this is a well-discussed group of record labels. Nothing like List of hip hop record labels or List of electronic music record labels, which are useful navigational lists at least. This fails even as a navigational list as only one entry is notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 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 13:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Setiadi[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NBAD. No coverage seen, accomplishments not significant enough to guarantee presumed notability. Timothytyy (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and United States of America. Timothytyy (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any decent coverage when searching online or using ProQuest. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Couldn't find any coverage, not notable for now.Epcc12345 (talk) 22:39, 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 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 13:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia Jane Powell[edit]

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

Fails GNG and SNG. No coverage found online. Timothytyy (talk) 11:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Badminton, and England. Timothytyy (talk) 11:22, 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 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 13:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Screw (card game)[edit]

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

The article fails the notability test and may be WP:OR. It is entirely uncited despite being created over 15 years ago and I can find no mention of it either at pagat.com or in comprehensive sources like David Parlett's Penguin Book of Card Games (2008). Even an Internet search produced nothing concrete other than clones of this page. Unless someone can produce WP:RS to support it, it seems a clear candidate for deletion. Bermicourt (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BEFORE comes up empty. Possibly WP:OR. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:20, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The River Flows Eastwards[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. I don't speak the relevant languages/dialects but I'm not seeing much that would count towards notability in AfD on en.wiki JMWt (talk) 10:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and China. JMWt (talk) 10:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a Douban listing page for this "一江春水向東流" production but zh.wiki doesn't have an equivalent article. A redirect to The Spring River Flows East where this TV adaptation is mentioned could serve as an alternative to deletion? AllyD (talk) 11:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets GNG. Here are some sources: [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]. Here are sources with episode-by-episode plot summaries, which may also be useful for expanding the article: episodes 1-5, episodes 6-10, episodes 11-15, episodes 16-20, episodes 21-25, episodes 26-30. More sources are available online, although searching is a bit tricky because of the 1947 film whose name is the same in Chinese. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources. Thank you, Mx. Granger (talk · contribs), for your excellent and comprehensive research. The first two sources are from Youth Daily and Beijing Star Daily. The sources provide extensive coverage about The River Flows Eastwards, which passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 07:25, 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 13:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of paintball leagues[edit]

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

Verifiability issues, mostly unreferenced list. Merko (talk) 10:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Lists. Merko (talk) 10:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list of almost entirely redlinks, because none of these leagues appear notable. Doesn't meet any of the suggested criteria of WP:NLIST. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a list of non-notable sports leagues. And even the two articles that exist in Category:Paintball leagues don't appear to pass WP:GNG either. Ajf773 (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, PRODded both. Merko (talk) 20:33, 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 no consensus‎ to delete. Discussions to stubify, rename or redirect can continue on the respective talk pages. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball Collectible Card Game[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The article just relies on primary sources and commercial links. Xexerss (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan.Xexerss (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dragon Ball#Collectible cards per nom; this page is solely based on primary sources and has a ton of fancruft. Link20XX (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/rename This article appears to cover both the 2008 game and the 2017 game ("Dragon Ball Super Card game") which is apparently basically a revision to the 2008 game? Dragon Ball Super Card Game appears to be notable. There is what appears to be an independent book ([37], and a fair bit of coverage by relevant fan sites ([38], [([39], [40], [41] including reviews [42]. I'm no subject expert, but it looks like the 2017 game is notable and it makes sense to also have some coverage of the 2008 game. That said, the current article has lots of problems and could stand to be hugely trimmed. Hobit (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or redirect. There is something notable here, I hope, but given the current woeful state of this (terrible referencing), WP:TNT is frankly an option too. [43] and [44] suggest that the topic of Dragon Ball card games may be notable, and such an article can indeed discuss various games from that franchise (there is also Dragon Ball Z Collectible Card Game which looks only a little bit better...). The current article could redirect there. But such an article does not exist yet. A redirect target to consider could be Dragon_Ball#Collectible_cards. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC) PS. I'll ping some editors that may be interested in this: User:Mindmatrix, User:Bermicourt, User:BOZ, User:VickKiang. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also @Leitmotiv _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - There are likely many articles available for citing as this is a popular series. It needs a lot of TLC, or as Piotr said, some TNT. Strong oppose to redirect. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon (DJ)[edit]

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

Hard to Google test on, but not reliably sourced. I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 04:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Estonia. I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 04:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There are some serious sources, but rather WP:ONEEVENT (song "On & On"). Secondly, the group existed only about two years: 2015-2017. Some sources:
Estopedist1 (talk) 05:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. No reliable sources WP:NBASIC. Redirect is a good option too I think. 128.6.36.94 (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I'm totally okay with this comment being struck out if someone chooses to do that. I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 23:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, instead of deleting, possibly redirecting to List of musical groups from Estonia may be the best solution--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep Delfi has a list of sources [45]. Takes some time to check all the 369 hits, but passes GNG and WP:NEXISTS. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:16, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Berezove, Synelnykove Raion, Dnipropetrovsk Oblast[edit]

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

No indication this is a legally recognized place, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This entry does not meet GNG or an SNG as worded. Regrettably, an impartial application of existing guidelines requires that this page be deleted, irrespective of other considerations Jack4576 (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a separate, recognised settlement and thus meets WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep has a post office acto GMaps, and it's obviously a settlement of some sort. I'm uncomfortable with the nominations of these Ukrainian settlements which are plainly there; we have held US and UK places to much lower standards, and it's known that some important Ukrainian sources are off line due to the war. Mangoe (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See here, first settlement under "Hromada composition" (Ukrainian: Склад громади) - Berezove is listed, and is thus recognised, as a settlement within the Velykomykhailivka rural hromada.

Mupper-san (talk) 21:37, 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan Public Policy Research Organization[edit]

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

The organization has not been proven to be notable. Brunnaiz (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the referenced links were primary sources. While there are some news articles or books mentioning reports or empolyees from the organization, not much can be found about the organization itself. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Afghanistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The publications themselves qualify for the keeping of this article. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage confirms the organization exists, but nothing that meets WP:SIRS. LibStar (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There just isn't enough in-depth coverage of the think tank itself to justify a standalone Wikipedia article, even if WP:NONPROFIT applies and the scope of their activities were national (and arguably international) in scale. That said, is there an alternative to deletion per WP:ATD such that we could salvage at least some mention of the organization and its publications? (We currently don't have a subject-specific notability guidelines for think tanks.) In other words, could we redirect this page to another target (and if so, where)? And/or could we include the organization on a list page somewhere? Cielquiparle (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of its founders have their own article, and it doesn't belong to any larger organization. Currently there's no place in the mainspace to redirect this to. Maybe a draft of this can be created and wait for someday when the organization becomes notable. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 03:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 19:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Damour Vocal Band[edit]

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

Searching the band’s name in both English and Persian results YT videos and some non-RS blogs only. Fails WP:NBAND. Htanaungg (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Iran. Htanaungg (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

well the artist that they are, they are active on social media platforms, so the top links that google bring up lead to their blogs and YT channels.

here is a link showing they perform in a notable television show called Khandevane.

here is an article about their performance on national TV (IRIB TV1) which was a big deal at the time, since they had female singers in the band.

they are the first band in Iran with an album in A cappella genre here is a article about that. also one in VOA farsi.

they won the third place In choir category in 27th Fajr International Music Festival.

and they had many different concerts, but I don't think those concerts count as tours.

I believe they qualify for notability under section 7 (since they are the most prominent A cappella band in Iran) also section 9 (they won a Fajr Festival Award) and section 10 (they have performed on national TV and a prominent TV show)

Breezingsorrow (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the sources provided in this discussion by Breezingsorrow that show that they have appeared on national television and received coverage for that as well as awards, so passing WP:NMUSIC criteria 7 and 10, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 09:55, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Newbould[edit]

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

This was created by UPE sockfarm. We need an another review of this. Coverage is local, seems to fail WP:SIGCOV. US-Verified (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Theatre, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, a friend of mine advised me to look at Wikipedia to see that this page says it is to be deleted. My name is Nick Newbould and this page actually shares information about me personally. I do not know who created this information, but I can confirm the information on this page is quite accurate. I am not a tech savvy individual so I am unsure of what I would need to do to make sure this page is not deleted. I know of many people who have used this resource to gain information about me. I am a well-known theatre/TV actor from the UK and currently reside in Los Angeles where I am working on a sitcom. I can also confirm that coverage of me has not come from just local press sources, that are close to my residence, but do include national press coverage in the UK. Is there anything I can help you with, or anything I can do in order to make sure this page remains? Like I said previously I am not really technically minded so I would need some help (step by step) from someone who really knows how to navigate the Wikipedia/technical world, I am ashamed to admit that this is really not my strength. Thank you so much for your help in advance, I really do appreciate it, hope you are all keeping well out there! Yours truly, Nick Newbould. 75.12.18.22 (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also what is UPE sockfarm mean ? Thank you again 75.12.18.22 (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UPE stands for undisclosed paid editing; anyone who is being paid to edit here must declare it. Sock is short for sock-puppet, and refers to someone who has set up multiple puppet accounts all operated by the same person but with different usernames. So a UPE sock-farm accuses someone of paying to have this article created by a covert agency. If you are indeed Nick Newbould, please bear in mind that having an article about you is not necessarily a good thing as you cannot edit it, you cannot control it, nor can anyone you pay control it, and if negative publicity appears, it can appear here. If you want to strengthen the article, you can go to the article's talk page, and request edits (see WP:COI for details of what you can and can't do!). The most helpful thing you could do is provide information about the national press coverage of you in the UK. Elemimele (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But I haven't paid anyone to do anything.. So I am confused, all the information is pretty correct (where ever they found that) And if you google me you can see all my press coverage, IMDB credits etc etc. I literally have no idea what any of this means.... Again, please forgive me. I am not at all computer literate... Any thing any one can do would be very much appreciated.... Thank you so much.. 75.12.18.22 (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 09:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article relies exclusively on trivial mentions and routine coverage like role announcements as sources. Found no other adequate source for the subject, does not seem to pass WP:BIO. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for Ram avatar[edit]

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

Lack of notability for the topic to have its own article. Chronikhiles ^(talk) 07:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rama. This article doesn't even mention Ram or Rama until the fourth paragraph. This article might have something to do with an important subject in Hinduism but it doesn't clearly indicate its own topic. As a second choice, just delete. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article isn't about Ram: all of the avatars are avatars of Vishnu, since Ram doesn't have any avatars (he just is an avatar). A redirect would be inaccurate. AryKun (talk) 09:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 09:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does this help determine what this article is supposed to be about? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 09:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this article is mistitled; from what I can tell, it's a list of reasons that Vishnu reincarnated as an avatar. It's a fork of Vishnu and avatar; we probably do need a separate article on Vishnu's avatars, but this is not it. AryKun (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Metropolitan90. There is possibly a notable topic here but as it stands this isn’t an encyclopedia article and it is very difficult to discern what the topic is and why all the detail covered in the article matters. As written it’s very in-universe and I think redirecting to the purported main topic would be best until someone can take another run at this. Mccapra (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the title isn't a particularly likely search term, so a delete would be better than redirect imo. AryKun (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Out of the two cited sources on the Hindi version of this article, one leads to nowhere and the other does not have online preview for the cited pages. There does not seem to be coverage of the subject topic either. The title does not appear to be a likely searched term, so deletion seems to be the only viable choice. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 03:45, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual[edit]

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

WP:SYNTH, WP:NOTDICT, this article just haphazardly strings together any use of the WP:WEASEL word "intellectual" under the presumption that they are all related. It should just be redirected to Intelligentsia. - car chasm (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see there is a lot of sources treating intellectual as a class in society. Famous philosophers talking about the concept, etc. Adler3 (talk) 00:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Carchasm, this is unnecessary fork. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Social science. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the concept of the "Intelligentsia" as a class is clearly a different one from the role of the intellectual per se. --Jahaza (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The word 'Intellectual' has defined in many ways. Intellectuals can be found in all walks of life, from academia to politics, from the arts to the sciences. Intellectuals are known for their ability to analyze complex ideas and concepts. FXBeats21 (talk) 07:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to intelligentsia which is a proper article. Having two articles on what is essentially one topic risks content forks; this article is just a rather baggy essay.TheLongTone (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep intellectual (a social role) is clearly a distinct concept from intelligentsia (a social class). This article is not a haphazard collection of unrelated things bearing the same name, but a summary of a broadly defined social concept that has multiple aspects. Such is the nature of sociological study of roles. SFB 22:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but for all the wrong reasons. Reading both articles, it's obvious that the reason why Wikipedia cannot differentiate fully between intelligentsia and intellectuals is that society cannot either. In fact both articles define themselves with overlap to the other. Ideally, the subject could be treated in a single article. But at the moment, Inteligentsia is a very narrow article dealing with the subject exclusively as connected with the history of Eastern Europe and Russia, while Intellectual is far broader but perhaps less rigorous, but nevertheless peppered with genuine historical reference. There is slim-to-zero chance that anyone is going to carry out the enormous amount of work needed to create a satisfactory merge, so until then, we have two articles covering different aspects of an obviously notable subject that might be two subjects. So my !vote is a practically-minded keep until such times as someone comes up with a concrete desire to do the work. Redirect is hopeless because without the merge, you'd lose an enormous amount of genuine information about non-Eastern intellectualism. Elemimele (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SFB above. There's enough of a distinction between the individuals (intellectuals) and the overall class (intelligentsia) to warrant separate articles. Both articles need work but the subjects are notable and well sourced enough for their own articles. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems that the core of the article is WP:WORDISSUBJECT. The parts of the article that are not WORDISSUBJECT are Intellectual status class, which has it's own article, Public intellectual and Persecution of intellectuals, which need their own seperate articles, and Criticism, which is mostly primary. Spinning out might be a good idea. small jars tc 17:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like there is a difference between Intellectual and Inteligentsia, and there are plenty of references and background to build this beyond a DICDEF. I think that background is the key difference between this and a DICDEF and there's no need to merge into Inteligentsia. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Certainly room for an article here without devolution into the dreaded DICTDEF. Note: I wrote an article on public intellectual some time ago which was my one and only start to be merged or deleted. That still sort of pisses me off. I see now that "Public Intellectual" is a whole section of this piece and target for a search of the phrase which adds to my commitment that this is an encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have to say as the nominator I'm very confused at all the "keep" votes that appear to be giving valid reasons for deletion. I have yet to see a single policy-based vote arguing in favor of keeping this article, it's all WP:ILIKEIT, and so I request that all the keep votes be disregarded by the closing admin. - car chasm (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see much of a case for deleting this, to be honest. The article's content goes beyond a definition of the subject, etymology and the kind of things which appear in dictionary entries, so it's not forbidden by WP:NOTDICT (and permitted by WP:WORDISSUBJECT). Sure, the term "intellectual" has been applied to different things over time and in different cultures, but that doesn't make the article original research. The article clearly hasn't invented the concept of an intellectual or created it from various usages, it's a concept which an average person would be familiar with. Yes, there may be some overlap with Intelligentsia, but that's not a reason to delete or redirect this article, especially as Intelligentsia mainly focuses on eastern Europe. Hut 8.5 11:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alignment Research Center[edit]

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

While it gets mentions, there is not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notability case here is marginal at best, and if we were to have an article about the organization, we'd need to blow this up and start over. The line ARC tested GPT-4's capability to plan, replicate itself, acquire resources, remain hidden on a server, and conduct phishing attacks is a very close copy of the Ars Technica story. (Like the rest of the news I've looked at so far, that story doesn't cover the ARC as an organization in a way that the relevant notability guideline is met.) The sentence beginning ARC also found that GPT-4... is close enough to the Yahoo Finance story to count as copyvio. The line ARC has been expanding from theoretical work into empirical research, industry collaborations, and policy looks like it was written first and then had citations tacked on, one to the ARC's own website and the other to an online magazine of unknown reliability that mentions it in passing. Neither source supports the statement very well. In short: not covered as an organization, and the text would need a total rewrite to ensure it complies with policy, and indeed with basic academic ethics. XOR'easter (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Both of the close paraphrases have been corrected. If there are any others I am not aware of them. Sandizer (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Rewriting by making the passages less clear ("responded impermissibly"?) isn't really an improvement. XOR'easter (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't understand why that isn't more clear. Which is easier to understand, a response which isn't permitted, or a prompt which is forbidden? Clearly the latter (original) is misleading, because if a prompt requests forbidden information (the actual meaning here) then the correct response would be to decline to provide that information and explain why. Merely responding to such forbidden prompts isn't bad; failing to respond at all would be worse. Sandizer (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as OpenAI's primary independent contractor for safety evaluations, this is a notably important organization. I have absolutely no connections to either. The argument here seems to be the depth of the coverage. The article currently has eight independent, secondary, reliable, mass media sources describing the organization as performing that functon for OpenAI, with most of them going into at least a paragraph of depth about the outcomes of that process. This is far more than than the single sentence mention shown as insufficient at WP:SIRS. Sandizer (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A paragraph about a thing an organization did one time isn't reporting on it as an organization, which is what the relevant guideline requires. Nothing in the coverage provided so far suggests we need an article about the Alignment Research Center, as opposed to an article about GPT-4. XOR'easter (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Why do you think the guideline specifies that reporting on the actions of an organization is not reporting on the organization? Perhaps you have heard the aphorisms, "actions speak louder than words," and, "it's not what you have, it's what you do with it"? And it's not just "a thing" we're talking about -- there are at least four distinct interesting results of the process summarized in the article so far. To be clear for those who might be reading this discussion without having looked at the article, we're talking about descriptions of those results in The Atlantic, The New York Times, Vox, Ars Technica, Vice News, and The Wall Street Journal, among other less prominent sources. Sandizer (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. Therefore, for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company. The situation here is analogous. XOR'easter (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Only a specific topic" is written in the singular. Currently the article summarizes how independent, reliable mainstream news sources have reported on:
ARC's mission;

the name of its primary founder;

the former company of its primary founder (qualifying him as "noted" and his position as "key", by the way);

its founding date;

its activities, and several distinct details thereof;

the GPT-4 assessment contract, including the general statements of work to be performed;

the result involving hiring a TaskRabbit worker for solving a CAPTCHA;

the quantitative result on forbidden responses;

the quantitative result on hallucinations; and

returning the FTX Foundation money.

There is no question that the sources cover several times more than "only a specific topic". As for the example given, a company doesn't perform a recall, a regulatory agency is the actor and the company merely complies to carry it out. In contrast, ARC performed the GPT-4 assessment work as a voluntary contract, the work and results of which represent multiple topics, each of which has been reported on by independent, reliable, mainstream news secondary sources. Sandizer (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One assessment = one topic. XOR'easter (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agreed with Sandizer. CastJared (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Anna Nicole Smith. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Wayne Smith[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO. This article is basically a coatrack for a lot of stuff about his mother. 3/4 of it isn't even about him. Here's what we know about him: 1) his mother was famous, 2) He appeared on her reality TV show a handful of times, 3) He died of an overdose. Notability is not established, nor even a valid claim of notability made here. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 02:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage is all about her other daughter and mentions this person in passing. Nothing found for him in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per above. CastJared (talk) 04:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong oppose deletion~~See new vote below. Maybe a case of WP:1E, but wait, why is there a strong delete? Numerous sources provide coverage for his death (Oaktree b I doubt if you even read all of the 26 sources as you replied just 7 minutes after the nomination, and four minutes after your last edit?!?), so I don't understand what "a lot of stuff about his mother" and "3/4 of it isn't even about him" from the nomination's statement mean. The sources are written in the perspective of his mother just because he's dead, not only because she is famous. "Smith's son" refers to the subject so I don't understand why the nominator said "3/4 of it isn't even about him". The best option I believe is to keep it, or if anyone opposes merge this article (especially the section about the will) to his mother's per WP:1E. Don't hastily delete an article with so much useful information and sources. Oaktree b and CastJared, I would suggest you two to read the previous nomination first if it is not the first nomination. Timothytyy (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His mother was famous and he died. Where is the notability? The first AfD (from 2006!) is not helpful at all, as most of the comments are along the lines of this Keep. If for nothing more than the irony of his death.. Stuff like that doesn't fly in 2023. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 13:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Balph Eubank Can you explain on sources 2,3,4,5,6,9,10,11,15 and 16? Source's titles containing "Anna's son" does not indicate that the article is not about the subject. I did not mean that the previous nominations were useful, I was just curious about how a user concluded that all of the 23 sources do not contribute to GNG 7 minutes after the nomination and 4 minutes after the user's last edit. The user could have looked into previous nominations for reference instead of storming out a stance. Timothytyy (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is "stoming", my position is well-considered, calmly-presented and based on guidelines. See also WP:ONUS WP:BURDEN. We still don't know anything about Daniel except that he was Anna Nicole Smith's son and that he died of a drug overdose. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 16:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's riding on the coat-tails of his mother and I can't find articles about him in detail. I don't take an hour to analyze sources in detail. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And frankly you do this long enough you get to know which sources are useless just by looking at them quickly. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Daniel's death was already explained in Wiki article about Anna Nicole. He was not a public figure; celebrity in his own right. Dekker2 (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Linearvector (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Dekker2 above mentions - he was not a public figure Nashu2k (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I voted for strong oppose deletion above, I now vote for merging to Anna Nicole, his mother. There are many pieces of useful information in the article so please don't remove them. Please check my previous vote for justifications. Thank you. Timothytyy (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is very confusing and gives the appearance of a double vote. Please remove this and instead strike your original vote and amend it with your new position. Thank you. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 12:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any contradictions between "strong oppose deletion" and "merging"? I already suggested merging in my previous vote. Also I used "comment" instead; closers should definitely notice the "above" in my comment if they read it. Anyway I have stricken my original vote. However my stance is still the same, so my previous justifications are still valid. Timothytyy (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many Hollywood actors, politicians, etc. lost their family members i.e. John Travolta's son Jett died in 2009 aged 16. (He didn't have his own Wikipedia article.) The death of DS was thoroughly explained in ANS article (no need for puffery, or non encyclopedic, lurid details of his death). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavalooma (talk • contribs) 16:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. While it might seem like a slam-dunk, most of the Delete voters are editors with low edit counts and so not much familiarity with AFD. I'd like to see more investigation and evaluation of existing sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Anna Nicole Smith. This article includes pertinent info about Daniel's unfortunate death, but Daniel himself wasn't independently notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Funcrunch (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also be fine with this article being deleted, FWIW. Funcrunch (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
merge per Funcrunch Bedivere (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

merge After all, if the page is gone it will still be a redirect to Anna's page. igordebraga ≠ 13:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Anna Nicole Smith, from my Google search I found he has coverage though riding under the umbrella of the mother popularity but that didn't get him anywhere near him been notable but gots coverage national and international mostly because of his death, that alone deserves to be reserved and not be deleted.Epcc12345 (talk) 23:04, 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 merge‎ to Right to silence in Australia. Courcelles (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Companion rule (Australian Criminal law)[edit]

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

The topic that the page discusses is already very well discussed at Right to silence#Australia, and at a much greater length. A WP:BLAR was contested by page creator. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 08:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Australia. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 08:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Looks like it was perhaps created in ignorance of Right to silence#Australia. A split from that article should not restrict itself to just the Companion Rule which is a common law principle but not the fuller treatement of the subject, which is right to silence. It is not clear why a split is required from the parent article. As the BLAR was contested, deletion is better than redirect, although I do not oppose redirect if others see fit. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing this to Merge with Right to silence in Australia, which now exists. I have split this from the parent, adapted, checked and fixed all refs except one which I marked dead. As per the discussion below, this is the better split as it gives the full Australian context in a single article and does not hive out one common law principle from it. I gave the companion rule a section in the new article. It still needs attention, but I think this improves the project. Merge will preserve the companion rule page history. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is the best way to go with this, as I don't think it's worth keeping two different articles about what are effectively the same thing. Now that Right to silence in Australia has been created, I am changing my !vote to Merge. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 23:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ [switch to] merge: because the logic of the nomination is both faulty and not based on any policy. If we deleted simply on the basis that the "topic that the page discusses is already very well discussed at Right to silence#Australia", then we would also have to delete Right to silence in England and Wales since it is "already discussed" at Right_to_silence#England_and_Wales. It's a horrible reason for nomination for deletion, that refers to no policy to back it up. Huggums537 (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC) Updated on 05:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Huggums537: The difference here is that Right to silence in England and Wales goes into a lot more detail compared to its corresponding section at Right to silence. The article being discussed is very short and doesn't go into much detail. If someone was to extend it to the point that it was more detailed than Right to silence#Australia, I would be willing to withdraw this nomination. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure @Jack4576 wouldn't mind doing that once his block expires, and his restrictions allow for it. Huggums537 (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe he might have some assistance with it from the mentorship offered to him from MaxnaCarta as well. Huggums537 (talk) 07:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even the next keep vote below seems to think this article can be easily expanded. I think it would be safe to assume you could go ahead and withdraw the nomination now with reasonably safe assurances this kind of article would be expanded in the future. Huggums537 (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m always happy to add value to an aus law article but I’m not yet convinced it’s sufficiently covered in secondary sources to warrant a standalone article which is why I haven’t voted yet. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and what is being proposed is actually a split from the Right to Silence article and then a merge of this into that split, which makes more sense (as per my delete !vote above). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think a merge is reasonable now that the new article exists. I'll switch my vote to merge. Huggums537 (talk) 05:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Huggums537, and because there is plenty of legal material on this that could be used to support the state of the law in Australia and justify a standalone articleMerge to Right to silence in Australia.~~The article title should probably be changed to "Privilege against self-incrimination (Australia)" or something like that, which is the term usually used in Australia~~. Deus et lex (talk) 20:35, 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 redirect‎ to Golden Lotus (musical). Clear consensus against a standalone page, argument for a redirect not specifically rebutted. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A World Away (Remix)[edit]

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

Non notable song which "won" awards from "film festivals" which churn out countless awards for whoever pays, but don't have actual screenings, notability, importance, ... Part of a walled garden of articles promoting a musical and the people around it, which should all get some scrutiny: but this one seems to be the worst when it comes to notability (the others were already deleted in the past though, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Chiang). ProD was removed with the addition of sources, but as these were the website of the singer and the Apple music store[46], they didn't help to solve the problem. Fram (talk) 08:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Hong Kong, and Canada. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Golden Lotus (musical), where the song is mentioned in multiple sections of the article, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I was able to find only one source about the subject. The source is of unknown reliability but likely is unreliable as I cannot find evidence of editorial oversight:
- "Review – A World Away by Theresa Kowall-Shipp". Indiewrap. 2021-12-17. Archived from the original on 2023-05-23. Retrieved 2023-05-24.
  The review notes: "A World Away, is the signature pop ballad from the award-winning musical, Golden Lotus. Sung by award-nominated singer Harriet Chung and written by award-winning composer George Chiang, the song transcends time with a heart wrenching message about missing the person you love."
The song does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 07:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO and nom. No sigcov in independent reviews other than Chung's own blog(!). These "awards" do not seem noteworthy, and the fact that they are not covered by WP:RSs confirms that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:40, 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 13:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Hayward at the Half Moon Hotel, Volume 2[edit]

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

Another contested draftification without improvement. Found several mentions, but not enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jamaica-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2023-04 move to → Draft:Lance Hayward at the Half Moon Hotel, Volume 2

--Cewbot (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 07:54, 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheekha[edit]

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

Article about a film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, every film is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- films have to pass notability markers, such as notable film awards and/or the reception of enough reliable source coverage about the film to pass WP:GNG. But the referencing here consists of two directory entries that aren't support for notability at all, and glancing namechecks of the film's existence in coverage of its lead actor as a person, with no sources shown that are actually about the film -- and fundamentally, the notability claim is that the film exists, which isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to be better than it is. Bearcat (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Bearcat (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
rather Keep. There are probably sources in Hindi. The sources on the page are indeed only half-focusing on the film (some less than half, true) but still, reading them makes you think it's mildly notable.— MY, OH, MY! 22:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep badly sourced articles just because somebody speculates that better sources might exist — anybody can claim that better sources might exist for anything, even hoaxes. So we only keep poorly sourced articles if better sources are proven to exist, and idly speculating about the possibility of maybe finding better sources than have actually been shown doesn't count for much. Bearcat (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 07:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to fail the general notability guideline. It would be reasonable to keep it if it passed the additional criteria in WP:NFILM on the presumption that the required sources are likely to exist in Hindi, but we don't have any evidence that it does. I'm not sure the film actually got a wide release given that the sources are largely talking about the premiere at a film festival, if it didn't then there aren't likely to be many reviews. Hut 8.5 17:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. 3 weeks of discussion. Time to call it. Courcelles (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl D'Bonneau[edit]

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

Was up for PROD but saved with the addition of a single interview. There are a few paragraphs of seemingly independent reporting at the top of that article so it could be a good source, but if it's the only one that's getting found then this still isn't showing notability. As I said in the PROD, one #1 hit on (what looks to be unless I'm mistaken) a minor Billboard chart isn't promising, and though this is no longer totally unsourced, there are still no other apparent points of notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Carolina. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Doesn't he pass the WP:MUSICBIO SNG criterion #2 virtue of his #1 hit on the Billboard Dance chart?

I disagree that Billboard dance is a minor chart, for the era, (~2000s) that was the most important chart for Dance music. By any standard within his genre that is a major chart, and Dance music is not a minor genre. Jack4576 (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears my first mistake was assuming that Dance/Electronic Songs was older than 2013. I suppose that means this would've been the biggest chart at the time, though for a genre which wasn't particularly major at the time so that could go any way. Doesn't matter though, my main point was that without anything else to support notability this is still too barebones. Do keep in mind that MUSICBIO specifies that "may be notable if they meet at least one" criterion (emphasis mine), but not necessarily that just meeting one is a guarantee. Having just one hit song at a time when the genre wasn't particularly successful in general doesn't feel like a strong enough claim to me. Our best bet would be more reliable sources, and my not finding any is how we got here in the first place. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree that the ~2000s were an unsuccessful period for dance music, arguably some would regard it as a silver age of sorts. Wonder if any domain experts would be able to weigh in here for comment? I still think the entry is fine as is, am leaning Keep. Jack4576 (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding anything but the single 2014 piece in Dance Mogul Magazine, and honestly it reads like it was written by his publicist. Do we have another source for this claimed #1 hit? Google on "darryl d'bonneau" billboard brings up a single #48 and nothing else. Searching billboard for d'bonneau ditto. Valereee (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 07:26, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John De'Mathew[edit]

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

Not finding notability in sources, Gsearch is straight to social media. Dying in a traffic accident isn't notable, rest of their career appears non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Kenya. Skynxnex (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Kenya’s vice president William Ruto paid tribute to him (CNN) and he is called "the celebrated king of benga" by The Standard, one of Kenya's largest newspapers (see here). This article by The Standard notes a few "bestselling hits". Mentioned here as a successful Gĩkũyũ musician, and as an "genius" who could sway public opinion in this book.

While it is unfortunate that most of the coverage lacks depth and mainly consists of articles written after his death, I don't believe that this should undermine his notability. Mooonswimmer 01:42, 8 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!} 23:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral there are sources but they are not in depth Adler3 (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are references to make him notable. FXBeats21 (talk) 07:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 07:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think WP:GNG is passed by these sources [47][48][49][50]. I've !voted weak keep because a lot of the coverage of him online is about his death, however I think the sources linked gives more information about his life. I wouldn't be surprised if there was offline sources, but WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is a bad argument to make. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough national coverage to meet WPSINGER. 116.92.232.6 (talk) 02:30, 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 13:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Chorneyko[edit]

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

Clear failure of WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Zero secondary sources cited, zero passable secondary sources found through a web search. IceBergYYC (talk) 05:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. IceBergYYC (talk) 05:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jaguarnik (talk) 07:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, career stats don't meet WP:NHOCKEY, and references provided are basically all team announcements. PK T(alk) 13:33, 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 speedy delete (G5, creation by a blocked sockpuppet)‎ Materialscientist (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suria Records[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCOMPANY, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. One of the sources provided is a deadlink and the other is an inclusion on a membership list - neither demonstrate the record lable is notable. Dan arndt (talk) 05:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Malaysia. Dan arndt (talk) 05:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomination. The article creator has created a few similar articles under different usernames as well. Equine-man (talk) 06:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, and page created by a now blocked sock. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:22, 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. Despite a relatively even vote count, no rebuttal was made to the source analyses which clearly undermine arguments of notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Etienne Mermer[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question: has the nominator fulfilled WP:BEFORE? Jack4576 (talk) 05:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added a few sources, and as with the rest of tonight's deletions, there are plenty on the Vanuatu Daily Post in Bismali for the football fans to go through.--IdiotSavant (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- [51] - Is routine coverage
- [52] - Passable
- [53] - Routine coverage
- [54] and [55] mentioned once in each article and is routine coverage
One source is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], there is more in the google search.[61], Regards. Govvy (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lets see, the first two are interviews with the subject and therefore are primary sources. The third and fifth sources mentions the subject once and therefore it fails WP:SIGCOV. The fourth source mentions the subject twice and is routine. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are not 'primary'. Giant Snowman 18:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they are! "The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source and is also non-independent material. " Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From OR:
For definitions of primary sources:
The University of Nevada, Reno Libraries define primary sources as providing "an inside view of a particular event". They offer as examples: original documents, such as [...] interviews, [...]"
Duke University Libraries offers this definition: "A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include [...] interviews, [...]"
JoelleJay (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Clearly was significant figure and topic of interest in Vanuatu football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources above are routine, trivial, primary, and/or non-independent. The Daily Post piece mentioned as "passable" above by Sportsfan is three trivial sentences in a routine press release from Vanuatu Football so fails SIGCOV, routine, and independence N. The youtube interviews are obviously primary and non-independent (WP:OR explicitly includes interviews among examples of primary sources) and so do not count, and anyway they're by the governing football org (OFC) and the government sports ministry so are automatically ineligible to count towards GNG N (and that goes for the other OFC article too). Oceania Football Center is a WordPress blog N. The Solomon Star source is a passing mention + quote N. Nothing approaching SIGCOV here. JoelleJay (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your nomination is already considered a “delete” vote. Striking double-vote. Frank Anchor 03:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is what 2 hours of sleep does, sorry for the confusion! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, thanks! Frank Anchor 13:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is enough non-trivial, non-interview coverage through the provided refs to pass WP:NBIO, which states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Frank Anchor 03:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources have SIGCOV, as required by NSPORT? Which even have non-routine, non-trivial coverage in SIRS? The only ones that are even independent are a couple of the Daily Post pieces and the Solomon Star source. This is the entirety of the coverage of him:

Vanuatu U23 football coach, Etienne Mermer, stood by his players and congratulated them for reaching the semi-final of the OFC Men’s Olympic qualifiers.[62]

[press release from Vanuatu Football][63]

with Vanuatu coach Etienne Mermer and coach Leo Moli putting in Azariah Soromon at number minute. (+quotes)[64]

The Vanuatu Football Federation (VFF) has confirmed that Assistant U20 coach Etienne Mermer will not join the management team of the U20 squad of Vanuatu where he stayed for the World Cup in Korea in May. [...] Mermer's Thomas and Kaltak were part of the U20 squad that defeated the Solomon Islands in the U20 semifinal in Vanuatu last year...[65]

[literally all coverage is "Mermer said"], and anyway the article is a press release from VFF

[youtube interview from OFC], [youtube video from sports ministry]

[blog post][66]

Suri’s opposite number Etienne Mermer despite having a good number of experienced players featured in the 2017 FIFA U-20 World Cup says... (+quotes)[67]

[OFC PR][68]

So please tell me how this adds up to SIGCOV of Mermer??

JoelleJay (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. I agree with the above evaluation of the sources. Alvaldi (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per the above evaluation of the sources; the only in-depth coverage comes from the VFF, OFC and quotes from the subject himself (which are not independent of the subject). Jogurney (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how in light of the source analysis by JoelleJay above? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:31, 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 speedy delete (G5, creation by a blocked sockpuppet)‎ Materialscientist (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GP Records[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As per the previous AfD, the article fails the requirements of WP:NCOMPANY, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. The only source provided does not even mention GP records. Dan arndt (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Indonesia. Dan arndt (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the Nominator's point. Fails WP:NCOMPANY. Yasal Shahid (talk) 05:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: has the nominator fulfilled WP:BEFORE ? Jack4576 (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources" suggests he has. LibStar (talk) 06:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is a direct copy and paste of the previous article that was created by the same editor that was deleted previously. Equine-man (talk) 06:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched under the alternate name "PT Graha Prima Swara" and found nothing. The name "GP records" gets results for General practitioner records. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 06:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomination and per results of previous Afd, this is a copy of the previous article that was deleted. Equine-man (talk) 06:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NCOMPANY which it clearly fails. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also note the page was created by a now blocked sock. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:23, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soul metal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

this genre does not exist FMSky (talk) 04:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. FMSky (talk) 04:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: has the nominator fulfilled WP:BEFORE? Jack4576 (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editors do not need to overtly state in every nom that they followed BEFORE. It's generally implied, and people generally only ask about it when they they have particular reason to doubt it (liking finding a bunch of sources themselves.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator. I'm not able to find any reliable source that mentions soul metal as a real genre; seems to be a very minor thing that maybe some people think about now and then. Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm not sure why this was recreated, I really don't think this genre is a thing. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Valid hypothetical fusion of music styles, which I wouldn't mind sampling out someday if I find so much as a real example at my usual sources (I'm open to almost any genre possible). Up to others with WP:Library credentials to look up this exact term in the meantime; the Oxford and Gale databases may be a good place to start. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 12:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found a source that actually uses the term soul metal to describe a band called Invasion. You can find the source here: https://thequietus.com/articles/02512-soul-metal-outfit-invasion-on-the-power-of-motown-metallica-and-magic I'm still looking around to see if I can find anything else, and will add it if I do. Moline1 (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found another source that uses this term to describe Natalie Maines (of The Chicks) cover of Jeff Buckley's Lover, You Should've Come Over. https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/music/2013/04/29/natalie-maines-solo-album-streaming/2121801/ Moline1 (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, unfortunately those aren't enough. For the article to be kept, there'll need to be enough sources that specifically describe soul metal, the aspects that make it distinct from other types of metal, and so on. That source would also need to be reliable and not be a blog post or opinion piece. Nythar (💬-🍀) 15:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you read The Quietus article, it says that the band Invasion mixes heavy metal with Motown sound. I made sure to note this on the article page. Moline1 (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one more source describing usage of the term, this time being used to describe Bill McClintock's soul and metal mashups (E.G. Donna summer mashed with Danzig). McClintock is also claiming coinage of the term as well, but it is clear this term has existed well before his mashups. https://www.loudersound.com/news/danzig-mashed-up-with-donna-summer-is-the-silliest-greatest-thing-youll-hear-this-week If anybody else wants to keep looking, be my guest. I've also inserted these sources on the soul metal article as well as the Wikipedia pages applicable to the source (E.G. Motown sound, Natalie Maines Mother album, etc) Moline1 (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of "soul metal" needs to be more thoroughly examined than just that. If every term someone coined had its own Wikipedia article, we'd have possibly hundreds on music genres alone. If these sources are the best there are, then I'm afraid deletion is the most reasonable option. In its current condition, the article requires an unreasonable amount of WP:Synthesis. Nythar (💬-🍀) 15:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait for other users to chime in. They may potentially have sources I'm missing altogether. Moline1 (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at my sources I provided, you will see that they show usage of this term. In one source, it also described soul metal as a blending of heavy metal and Motown (at least for the band Invasion). Moline1 (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems like a massive instance of WP:SYNTH. I'm not seeing the term used commonly, or the WP:SIGCOV that would help it meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 15:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I added in a section to the article dedicated to metal artists who are influenced by soul music, but aren't necessarily classified as soul metal. Sevendust is a notable band displaying this kind of influence. Soul music vocals, but not classified as soul metal in the main. Sources are provided to back this up, too, taken from the Sevendust page. Moline1 (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're not really heading in the right direction. There's almost nothing present on the genre itself, veering off on related info isn't helping. You need to find some reliable sources that discuss the genre in great detail, and then expand the article according to that. What you're doing - cherry-picking ever passing mention a source calls a metal artist "soulful" - is not helping prove notability. Sergecross73 msg me 23:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Needs more reliable sources. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 23:26, 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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Bruce White Sr.[edit]

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

I found no significant press coverage in my searches. To that end, this should likely be re-directed to the film that covers the case he investigated as a part of the FBI. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 04:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: on the good faith assumption that Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! searched for sources and none were found Jack4576 (talk) 05:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep besides the TSHA entry on the article at the moment and the book which discusses his career, I quickly found this article from the Statesman and this entire biography. Did you really look for sources?--User:Namiba 15:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of course there aren't much internet sources on him, his work in the Osage murder case was a hundred years ago. There's a copious amount of sources for him in print and paper, and even if there weren't- the fact that he was instrumental in one of the most brutal murder cases in American history makes him notable enough. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 17:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Handbook of Texas has an entry on the subject here. There's also this biography. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep seems to pass WP:GNG with sources provided in discussion and the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:56, 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 13:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vanilla Beer[edit]

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

I could not find significant coverage to meet WP:ARTIST or WP:BIO. The awards are not verified but I don't believe they are major enough to meet WP:ARTIST. LibStar (talk) 03:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have made GNews, Google, and Newspaper.com searches and found no reference to this artist. No SIGCOV Jack4576 (talk) 05:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. A possible rename can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual property policy[edit]

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

The topic of this article appears to be overly broad and adequately covered by other articles. What the article calls "National IP policies"—such as patent and copyright terms—are very different from, for example, university IP licensing agreements and corporate transparency/trade secrets. There does not appear to be a good reason to conflate each of those distinct concepts in a single article. Moreover, those concepts are all dealt with more extensively in other articles, such as Technology transfer (for universities), Intellectual property (for broad policy considerations in forming a national/international IP regime), and Trade secrets. As this article is poorly sourced and has several tone issues, I do not think merger is appropriate (or really possible) and recommend deletion. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, and Business. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. In years past, I worked on intellectual property policies for a number of different kinds of institutions, and I am very comfortable saying that this is a notable concept that should be covered. With respect to the concept of "national IP policies", a distinction can be drawn between the intellectual property protections generally made available under national laws, and the policies of a national government regarding the use, licensure, or commitment to the public domain of its own content that would otherwise be subject to intellectual property protections. Some countries do claim copyright ownership, for example, over government decrees. BD2412 T 03:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think part of my issue is with the name of the article because, as we've both noted, there are distinctions in different kinds of IP policies; maybe one solution is moving the article to something like Institutional intellectual property policy? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve: per BD2412 T's arguments Jack4576 (talk) 05:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve, not only per BD2412, but also because Wikipedia editors (often used to dealing with public-domain documents due to their own nation's policies) really truly NEED to understand that there are differences elsewhere, making some documents unsuitable for direct inclusion here – they can be discussed, paraphrased, summarized, but not directly quoted at length. The topic is important to WP; it needs to be covered, and covered well. The solution to bad writing in this case is to improve it, not delete the coverage. – .Raven ^.talk 17:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per BD2412 and .Raven. Both sum it up aptly. Sal2100 (talk) 19:09, 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. The source analysis favoring deletion received no rebuttal. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Barron[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:WRITER. I wasn't able to find any coverage of him in reliable secondary sources. The article relies too heavily on primary sources (which can't be used to establish notability), with three of the five cited sources having been written by him and one being an article from the student newspaper of the university he attended (which is not independent of him and can't be used to establish notability). The article currently cites only one independent source, a local news article. His only claims to notability are co-authoring two books (neither one notable) and writing for a local newspaper; all of this received only minor local coverage in his hometown. Baronet13 (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I rescued the two broken references, and I think that they together establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think one article in the locals news counts as significant coverage. The Jambar article is published by his Alma Mater and is not independent of him. Multiple independent secondary sources are required to establish notability, not just one. Baronet13 (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Disability, and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources identified by Adler3, amounts to SIGCOV, GNG simply met Jack4576 (talk) 05:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep. Here is another source [69] which mentions Barron by name and discusses the content of the book that Barron wrote. I would say that this barely meets the threshold for in-depth. Adler3 (talk) 03:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has one paragraph about his book. I don't think that, and a local news article, is enough to meet WP:GNG requirements. Baronet13 (talk) 06:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Primary, fails IS	1. Barron, Judy; Barron, Sean (2002-04-08). There's a Boy in Here: Emerging from the Bonds of Autism. Future Horizons. ISBN 978-1-885477-86-6.
Primary, fails IS	2. ^ Grandin, Temple; Barron, Sean (2005-11-01). The Unwritten Rules of Social Relationships: Decoding Social Mysteries Through the Unique Perspectives of Autism. Future Horizons. ISBN 978-1-932565-06-5.
Interview	3. ^ Blundo, Joe (2008-04-29). "With help, reporter broke bonds of autism". The Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved 2009-04-12.
Interview	4. ^ Tate, Ashley (2008-05-01). "One story of autism". The Jambar. Archived from the original on 2011-07-17. Retrieved 2009-04-12.
Primary, fails IS	5. ^ Barron, Sean; Barron, Judy (2002). There's A Boy In Here: Emerging from the Bonds of Autism. Austin, Tex.: Future Horizons. ISBN 978-1-885477-86-6 – via Google Books.

This [70] is a brief mention list from the subjects book. "Sean Barron argue that it’s possible for people with ASD to learn strategies they can apply across a wide range of social situations. They note the following ten “unwritten rules of social relationships”:". Fails SIGCOV, does not address the subject directly and indepth.

I looked to see if I could find sources for the subjects work, and found the following:

Book Review in NLM database: Unwritten Rules of Social Relationships: Decoding Social Mysteries Through Autism's Unique Perspective [71], original here [72]. This is one source with SIGCOV about the work of the subject.
Book review: Unwritten Rules of Social... [73]. Site does allow reader reviews [74] and this appears to be one.

This is not enough to meet NAUTHOR.

WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 00:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TimothyBlue's analysis of the sourcing above. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:25, 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 no consensus‎. No apparent consensus whether sources satisfy SIGCOV, with good arguments both for and against. Randykitty (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Street Bird[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, as all but one of the sources are either promotional, from the venue or largely an interview. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 02:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Radio, and Australia. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 02:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep: This is a pointy nomination and I am being harassed by the nominator, an editor that has recently been trawling through my contributions: (1), (2), (3), (4)

I am not opposed to the idea that this venue arguably does not meet GNG guidelines (personally I view SIGCOV to have been met here, but I can see how it might be arguable either way); but this AfD nomination should come from another user Jack4576 (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220929074112/https://www.theurbanlist.com/perth/a-list/best-bars-northbridge		General list in which William Street Bird lacks SIGCOV.	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20230203130151/https://www.williamstreetbird.com/about	The venue's website.		✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20210514103005/https://concreteplayground.com/perth/bars/the-bird		Very short article with a very promotional tone.	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20221128220345/https://tonedeaf.thebrag.com/tame-impala-members-form-new-band-for-fundraising-gig/		William Street Bird is mentioned as the venue where a performance is to take place; lacks SIGCOV.	✘ No
https://www.williamstreetbird.com/	The venue's website again.		✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20190815124831/https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/community-radio-station-rtrfm-921s-radiothon-2019-is-set-to-kick-off-tomorrow-ng-b881292654z		Mentioned as the venue where a performance is to take place; lacks SIGCOV.	✘ 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}}.

Comment – above is a source assessment table of the article's sources I prepared. Nythar (💬-🍀) 03:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my source assessment table and the fact that I can't find any SIGCOV sources online. Nythar (💬-🍀) 03:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG as per Nythar's assessment. LibStar (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete No SIGCOVAdler3 (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More sources added to article's talk page, including this SIGCOV source, and a review of a performance by Stella Donnelly. Jack4576 (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IsolatedNation is not a reliable source, and none of the sources you added to the article's talk page demonstrate SIGCOV; they are instead very promotional. Nythar (💬-🍀) 04:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IsolatedNation is a well-established modern perth culture magazine and is a reliable source. Your claim to the contrary is bizzare. Jack4576 (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At least several of the IsolatedNation references you provided are written as first-person narratives and are heavily opinionated. Also, this search of IsolatedNation in Wikipedia reveals only a single instance of the use of their website as a source. That article is William Street Bird. I'm not enthusiastic about accepting poorly written, heavily opinionated, PROMO articles as reliable, independent, SIGCOV sources. To add to all this, those sources don't even significantly cover "the Bird." Nythar (💬-🍀) 08:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems WP:SPS per their aboutpage:[75] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's a business, but not a notable one. Fails WP:NCORP.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Selection of four sources:
  1. Veenhuyzen, Max (2014-08-31). "The Scene: The Bird". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.
    The review notes: "Is it The Bird? Yes. Is it plain? No, it’s super fresh. Sure, this pokey, charmingly DIY room serves drinks from midday, but it’s as much a place for enjoying art and song as it is somewhere to whet the whistle. ... But as an incubator for some of Perth’s more niche artists, The Bird nails it. Psych rockers, quirky illustrators, crate-diggers: these are just some of the people whose handiwork one can admire with a cold – and fairly priced – drink in hand. ... Don’t be put off by The Bird’s alternative leanings. Despite championing the non-mainstream, the venue and its staff extend a warm welcome to all, from lone wolves with a midday thirst to parties of dolled-up girls out to paint the town red."
  2. Bennett, Andrew (2010-07-23). "The Bird". News Corp Australia. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.
    The review notes: "Inside, The Bird looks like a big jam room for the resident band. Simple fixtures, plain wooden floors and cheap tiles behind the bar create the impression that this isn’t a bar but a well-catered house party. The low-spec look works, though, because none of it’s taken too seriously. While most bar designers do the exposed brick thing because they think it’s cool, The Bird’s done it to save a few bob. If the random eclectica gets too much, head out back for the best spot: a starlit, open-air courtyard."
  3. "The Bird". Broadsheet. 2017-10-06. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.
    The website's independent editorial policy notes: "We do not seek or accept payment from the cafes, restaurants, bars and shops listed in the Directory – inclusion is at our discretion. Venue profiles are written by independent freelancers paid by Broadsheet."
    The review provides 149 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "The Bird hosts diverse tunes, from solo artists to bands and DJs, between five and seven nights a week. But there’s as much conversation and conviviality as there is music appreciation, particularly in the rear open-air area. It has been extended to fit in even more op-shop couches and repurposed armchairs."
  4. McCarthy, Kristie (2018-09-26). "The Bird: A hipster hang-out with hip hop karaoke and a killer courtyard". Concrete Playground. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.
    There is editorial oversight according to https://concreteplayground.com/sydney/about-us^{Internet Archive}. Suz Tucker serves as editorial director. The review provides 249 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "The Bird is known as a hipster haven, but don't hold that against it. A small bar with a gorgeous outdoor area complete with fairy-light-wrapped trees, it's a venue that was designed by friends for friends. Back in 2010, a group of beer-loving buddies gutted the William Street site and it's since played host to exhibition launches, spoken word nights, dance parties and, of course, live music. Indeed, The Bird has been a comfortable home for Northbridge creatives for the past eight years."
2. Additional sources that contribute less to notability:
  1. "These Are The Venues Where Western Australia Loves To Party". The Music. 2016-10-12. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.
    The article provides 95 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "The Bird is a live music venue, based in Northbridge, that thrives on good vibes. The Bird hosts a range of live entertainment, exposing up-and-coming local musicians, monthly story telling night, the infamous Hip-Hop Kara"YO!"ke and international heavyweights playing intimate shows."
  2. "The Best Live Music Venues WA Has To Offer". The Music. 2015-10-30. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.
    The article provides 66 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Another Northbridge venue that’s prime for hangouts when live music isn’t on offer. It’s one of the most inviting venues around, and after a while in the beer garden, you begin to feel like you’re chilling in a mate’s backyard. We caught up with San Cisco there as they were gearing up to release Gracetown and they rattled off a couple of acoustic numbers for us."
  3. Mountain, Isabel (2021-10-28). "Reimaging the (gay) club". Western Independent. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.
    Western Independent is a newspaper run by Curtin University journalism students, so it contributes less to notability. The article notes: "The William Street Bird is a small, unassuming venue, sitting in a row of stores at the mouth of Northbridge. The Bird has served as a live music venue and bar for more than a decade after being opened in 2010. Current owner Kabir Ramasary, who bought the venue in 2017, says his own positive experiences at The Bird influenced his purchase. ... Aside from its bar and kitchen, The Bird hosts a range of entertainment, from live music across genres to festival events such as Soul Alphabet to drag shows. It is also famous for Monday Milk, one of the few opportunities in Perth for new bands to have the stage."
  4. Pepper, Daile (2010-02-23). "The Bird fights early closing time". WAtoday. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.
    The article notes that the new live music bar in Northbridge called the Bridge was owned by The William Street Bird owner Mike O'Hanlon. The article does not contribute much to notability, so I am including it in this section.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow William Street Bird to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure we can count Concrete Playground as having editorial oversight just because they list an "editorial director". Their "Editorial inquiries" says To pitch events, venues or news ideas, please send an email containing all relevant details and images to the editorial inbox in your city: Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Auckland and Wellington. Valereee (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee (talk · contribs), you have raised a good point about a flaw in my reasoning, so I did some more research on Concrete Playground. I found Concrete Playground's editorial policy^{Internet Archive} Here is information in the editorial policy that supports its being reliable:

Its editor is Samantha Teague.
"Concrete Playground is Australia's fourth largest independently-owned digital publisher (Nielsen Market Intelligence, July 2018),"
"All facts need to be thoroughly checked by both writers and editors before publishing — we have a duty to our readers to provide them with well-researched, accurate information."
"Direct quotes cannot be altered, and subjects do not have any approval over their quotes."
"Corrections will only be made to a published piece if something is found to be factually incorrect. If a change is made to a published article, a dated amendment will be added to the footer to acknowledge the original piece has been edited."
"All writers must disclose any possible conflict of interest on any piece of work they submit. This must then be disclosed at the footer of the published piece."
"We regularly critique restaurants and bars, and cultural events. These judgements are entirely our own and are only made after experiencing the subject first-hand. All positive and negative feedback must be backed up by reasoning."
"Opinion pieces (including our restaurant and film reviews) are entirely independent and are never produced in partnership with a third party."

Concrete Playground is cited as a source by a number of books, which also supports its being reliable. Here are the publishers and links to the books that cited Concrete Playground: Academic Press (1), Johns Hopkins University Press (1), Routledge (1 and 2), Taylor & Francis (1), and Text Publishing (1). Cunard (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every one of these sources consists of WP:ROUTINE coverage, published simply for the sake of publishing something. None of these prove that the Bird is notable, or that it stands out from other venues. If you search deeply enough, you could find a source for almost any building in existence; that is the reason why this large amount of sources does not automatically prove the subject passes the GNG. Therefore, the subject lacks SIGCOV. Nythar (💬-🍀) 10:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider venue reviews to be routine coverage that falls under WP:ROUTINE, which redirects to Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Routine coverage. These reviews meet the three items listed under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Product reviews: "be significant", "be independent", and "be reliable". Cunard (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers and magazines usually have a set minimum number of articles they must publish in a given period of time. If a subject relies entirely on those types of articles, the subject does not stand out. Like I said, you can find an article on almost anything if you search deeply enough, but those sources need to prove that the subject stands out and is particularly notable (i.e., more notable than other similar venues). Most of the sources you listed above are too short and others lack SIGCOV, containing only a few sentences describing the Bird. Nythar (💬-🍀) 10:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://archive.ph/2023.05.22-093230/https://infoweb.newsbank.com/apps/news/document-view?p=WORLDNEWS&docref=news/1500B6A266EA4BA8&f=basic	Not only is it short in length and poorly written, it also refers to the prices of different drinks offered at the venue. Doesn't try to prove the subject stands out. Looks like it was published just for the sake of publishing something.	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20230522093514/https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wa/the-bird-ng-79c6b562089e93b2e72539b1485ffd66	Not only is it a relatively short review, it also comes off as hyper-ROUTINE-ish.	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20230522093819/https://www.broadsheet.com.au/perth/northbridge/bars/the-bird	Extremely brief review that comes off as 100% ROUTINE.	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20230522094251/https://concreteplayground.com/perth/bars/the-bird	Similarly, this is also a very brief review that reads like an advertisement.	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20230522101327/https://themusic.com.au/news/wam-awards-2016-most-popular-venue/KTk6PTw_PiE/12-10-16	General list of venues that contains only four sentences describing the Bird.	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20230522101836/https://themusic.com.au/news/the-best-live-music-venues-wa-has-to-offer/XvtxcHNydXQ/30-10-15	Same as the one above, except this one contains only three sentences describing the Bird.	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20230522094719/https://westernindependent.com.au/2021/10/28/reimaging-the-gay-club/	Again, ROUTINE coverage of the venue, this time from Western Independent, a newspaper run by students at Curtin University, published for the sake of publishing something.	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20230522094719/https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/the-bird-fights-early-closing-time-20100223-oz5h.html	Story by a regional newspaper in Australia about the venue fighting "early closing time" that is 100% ROUTINE coverage.	✘ 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}}.

Comment – above is a review of the sources you've provided. The sources that come off as ROUTINE are listed as lacking SIGCOV. Nythar (💬-🍀) 11:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not slavishly following Nythar's analysis, but I note that "The Sunday Times" here, first source, is a Western Australia local paper and this appears to be a brief Sunday supplement write up. The others also appear to be in a similar vein don't they? This does not meet significant coverage per WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard’s excellent analysis. like other recent AfD’s, this pushes the windows of ROUTINE and SIGCOV in a strongly deletionist direction. As for the comment that the Sunday Times is merely a “local Western Australian” newspaper: our notability guidelines require reliable sources, not big sources. Even it it did require big sources, I would think a Perth newspaper with 168,000 subscribers would apply even if merely Western Australian. See The Sunday Times (Western Australia). —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source you are referring to by no means qualifies as "significant coverage." Nythar (💬-🍀) 15:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point about the paper being local to WA, and the article being a Sunday supplement article is that this is not, therefore, significant coverage of a notable business but routine coverage of a local one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How in the hell is it "by no means" significant coverage in the source you just linked to? It isn't just a trivial mention. 100% of the coverage in that source is about the topic. How don't you figure that is significant and more than a mere mention? Huggums537 (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Huggums537: See WP:CORPDEPTH. I posted the entire article below if you want to examine it quickly. According to CORPDEPTH:

The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.

If you examine the article, you'll find that it consists entirely of trivial information. In fact, that article contains almost no information suitable for an article, other than the fact that the venue exists. You can try that out if you're not sure: try writing a non-PROMO, non-trivial, non-brief, non-SYNTH article using that source alone. It's not possible. Therefore, it isn't possible to write an article longer than a very brief, incomplete stub using that source. It is composed entirely of trivial coverage. That means it fails SIGCOV according to CORPDEPTH. You can examine the other sources this way, and you'll find that none of them contain SIGCOV. (The university paper source is somewhat in-depth but is very local, and therefore fails SIGCOV per #Audience.) —Nythar (💬-🍀) 09:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I think you are confused. Sources don't have to pass any kind of a notability test, only Wikipedia articles do. A single source doesn't have to be able to support a whole article all by itself to be used on Wikipedia, and you should give a severe tongue lashing to whomever planted that dumb idea into your head. Huggums537 (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Huggums537 What on earth are you talking about? Sources don't pass notability tests; they need to be acceptable according to the GNG so that the article subject passes the GNG. This is entirely about SIGCOV. A source isn't SIGCOV if it is entirely trivial coverage. Significant coverage != trivial coverage. Using a single SIGCOV source, one should be able to, according to policy, produce an article that isn't horrendously brief. Meaning there is enough information that is "significant" (e.g. relatively detailed history, current owners, neutral analysis of the venue's effects on people living there, etc.) Can you prove that The Sunday Times' article contains anything but trivial coverage? Nythar (💬-🍀) 09:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in SIGCOV says a source has to be able to support an article in order to be used. Period. Huggums537 (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please stop making up rules.~~ Huggums537 (talk) 10:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Updated16:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Argue with CORPDEPTH: Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. To add to this, consider the fact that any organization or company that has at least one SIGCOV source (assuming it is both reliable and independent) may have an article. But if that "SIGCOV" source alone can only result in a single-sentence stub, then it isn't SIGCOV. I'm not making up rules; refrain from accusing me of this, and communicate civilly. Nythar (💬-🍀) 10:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Nothing you quoted at CORPDEPTH says the coverage has to come from a single source! Only that the subject has enough coverage to write more than a stub. Just because a single source might have enough coverage to support an article doesn't mean the source can't be used or isn't SIGCOV if it can't support an article. You could have multiple sources that each don't have enough coverage to support an article on their own merit, but do have enough coverage to support the topic, and when combined they all have enough coverage to support an article. Nothing in what you quoted says anything about coming from a single source. If it doesn't say it, then you are coming to your own conclusion. ~~In other words, you are making it up.~~ Conflating SIGCOV with CORPDEPTH and vice versa. You have already indicated elsewhere in this conversation that your intentions are to run us through hypothetical experiments on your theories about this, and I have already asked before to please stop, so I'll ask one last time to please keep your experimental theories to yourself. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Updated16:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you think sources can collectively constitute significant coverage indicates underlying WP:CIR issues with your understanding of relevant guidelines. WP:SIRS specifically states "Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability"; one of the criteria is "Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth." What is it about this that is so difficult to understand? Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other, and each source must meet all the criteria, one of which is SIGCOV. You're forcing me to need to clarify such obvious points, that my replies here seem to be "badgering." Anyway, we've gotten past that point; SIGCOV is only determined individually here. Moving on, the problem with regards to the 8 sources is that they do not contain "significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth." Why do I think this? I think this because (and I hope you'll stop belittling my position), if an article like the one I listed below cannot have meaningful, useful information derived from it which can be used in a Wikipedia article, then it does not qualify as "addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth." Why is this the case? If you read through the source below, you'll see that all the information is trivial and nothing there can be used in a Wikipedia article. It is superficial in coverage, reading more like a PROMO than a neutral article. Again, I do not know why you find it difficult to understand this. You're focusing on minor points that you think I got wrong rather than the bigger picture I'm painting. In addition to all this, your tone is quite condescending. You accuse me of failing to understand guidelines even though you (as I have demonstrated) do not understand this guideline. Adding to this, my experiment wasn't imaginary nonsense; noting once again that SIGCOV is determined individually per SIRS, if you can't use any part of a source in an article (since it focuses on drink prices and very minor trivialities), then it doesn't qualify as SIGCOV. These trivialities include "this pokey, charmingly DIY room serves drinks from midday" and "A succinct wine list that includes Mitolo pinot grigio ($9 a glass)" and "The Bird is also licensed to sell takeaway alcohol" and "The bar team, meanwhile, hasn’t gone too crazy with its cocktails" and "the venue and its staff extend a warm welcome to all" and "the bartenders’ smiles are genuine." How is the coverage significant if it focuses on such trivialities? Well, it isn't. It fails the "addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth" part of SIRS. The rest of the sources also fail this point (literally try checking them out yourself). Before you decide to respond, please rethink your positions and comments carefully, because even I am not entirely sure I understand what you're arguing for. Nythar (💬-🍀) 14:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My competency with understanding of relevant guidelines is just fine since I can quote policy that says exactly verbatim to back up my understanding of it at WP:NBASIC where it says, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability..., while ~~I have grave CIR concerns about your interpretations and understandings of basic guidance since~~ I have told you multiple times the guidance does not say exactly what you are trying to imply it does. Sure, each source must be evaluated independently, and sure each source must have more than a trivial mention (SIGCOV), but you do not seem to be grasping the fact that it still doesn't say anywhere that a single source must support the notability an article. Having significant coverage (i.e. being more than a trivial mention}, and "being notable" are two different things. Your inability to distinguish the two is becoming frustrating and tiresome. If you don't understand the extremely basic concept that what SIRS is trying to explain is that ok source 1 has enough coverage to go toward ~~notability~~ [SIGCOV], source 2 has enough coverage to go toward ~~notability~~ [SIGCOV] etc, etc, then you are falling far too short ~~of the basic understanding needed to edit here.~~ Huggums537 (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC) Updated on 18:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Updated16:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...You know that this is an AfD on a venue, not a person, right? And that NBASIC is exclusively for people? JoelleJay (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I know that, but at least I'm getting the principles I'm talking about from somewhere, and I'm not pulling them out of my ass. I would like to see the other editor show me something that they can quote verbatim from some guidance anywhere as I did, and not pulling ideas from thin blue air or taking guidance and misconstruing as they have been. If they were able, then I would gladly shut the fuck up. Huggums537 (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, each source must be, secondary, independent, reliable, and be more than a trivial mention, not be notable in its own right, and each source must be evaluated to meet this standard in order to qualify as a contributing source toward notability. When you are evaluating the SIGCOV criteria, you are not evaluating for notability, you are evaluating for SIGCOV to see if it is more than a trivial mention. If it isn't obvious that evaluating SIGCOV is evaluating SIGCOV, and not evaluating something else, then perhaps you should consider any one of the other 4 criteria such as the reliable sourcing criteria and imagine how weird it would be to say that evaluating a reliable source requires the source to contribute to notability before it can be considered for notability, because that is essentially the same argument you are making, and trying to require for the SIGCOV criteria. It is absolutely absurd and ridiculous! If the SIGCOV criteria must follow the guidance the way you are incessantly insisting that it does, then so must the others follow the same rule. If they are not able to do that without making any sense then it follows that isn't what it means. Huggums537 (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.

This is the requirement for each source contributing to notability. JoelleJay (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:Regurgitating what has already been said is not helpful in the least. I see nowhere whatsoever where it says that is a requirement for each source. My read on it is that the requirement is for depth of coverage on each subject per the sentence that specifically says it; Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability.. Only after it mentions this does it continue on to describe what deep or significant coverage is, and finally ending by saying that such coverage [of the subject] goes beyond mentions (plural) and announcements (plural) (That means more than one announcement in case you didn't catch that), to make it (obviousy) possible to write more than a stub. Huggums537 (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I only see one small sentence in the front saying anything about a source, and it has nothing to do with contributing to notability as you suggested. It is also talking about the depth of coverage on a subject by a source, and saying it must be considered, as it should. Huggums537 (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The opening line considers the depth of coverage of the subject by a source; why would the succeeding sentences that go on to describe what "depth" means now switch to being about the aggregate coverage across multiple sources? Why would the guideline repeatedly emphasize that
An individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability; each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary.
and then immediately redefine "significant coverage" as a cumulative product achieved through multiple sources? That would be utterly useless guidance for determining whether any given source is sufficiently significant to contribute to org notability, and would directly contradict all the other places where SIGCOV is described in relation to a single source, e.g.
Like any other source, reviews must meet the primary criteria to be counted towards the notability requirement:
1.Be significant [...]
Do you also believe the other key criteria for a SIGCOV SIRS are distributive just because the sections on "independent sources", "reliable sources", and "secondary sources" use "sources" instead of (awkwardly) speaking in the singular the whole time? JoelleJay (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez. I can't even get out of a debate because you want to argue the point so bad you're even willing to respond to a struckout comment. Thank heaven I at least got a little nap in. Nobody is trying to redefine SIGCOV. It is clearly defined where SIRS links to it in the primary criteria. WP:ORGCRIT says, A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. and then it goes on to tell you that These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline. If you go to SIGCOV it plainly tells you exactly what is meant for the "Significant coverage" threshold: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.. More than a trivial mention is good enough to pass SIRS for each individual source. The issue about CORPDEPTH is a totally separate thing in a completely different part of the guidance that really has to be talking about the overall notability of the subject. If you are attempting to mix SIRS with CORPDEPTH in ways that contradict the "parent" guidance by trying to say that the individual sources they are talking about from SIRS now have to be able to write their own articles in the way they are talking about should be done for all subjects in CORPDEPTH, then you are violating the fundamental ideas of SIGCOV that they must be more than trivial mentions, and also the principle of WP:NNC that notability doesn't govern content because if you really want to try talking about using a single source, then you don't really have any other choice but to talk about violating that since the only content you would have regarding notability is coming from just that source. It's really very hard to say you aren't using notability to govern content if you are just using the one source for notability. To make matters worse, you would (confusingly) be claiming the same guidance for both, but really violating it in two or more different areas of it. Huggums537 (talk) 03:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I started my reply before you struck your comments out.

NCORP works within GNG to tell us what type of coverage is considered non-trivial for companies and therefore contributory towards notability. You cannot meet GNG and fail NCORP unless you apply an interpretation of SIGCOV or independence that is at odds with the guidance at NCORP.

CORPDEPTH is not a totally separate thing in a completely different part of the guidance from SIRS, it comes directly after SIRS under the same Primary criteria section following an extremely straightforward format: SIRS explains how to apply ORGCRIT by stating the four SIRS criteria, then immediately after expands on each of those requirements with details and examples. The "S" in SIRS is expanded upon starting with the CORPDEPTH section and ending with ILLCON.

This is how I and I'm guessing pretty much everyone else here reads CORPDEPTH (bolded clarifiers):

The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by a given source is not sufficient to establish or contribute toward notability (alt from Numerical facts section: A collection of multiple trivial sources does not become significant). Deep or (aka significant) coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage by each qualifying source provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and this requirement for each source makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.
JoelleJay (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're gonna respond here cause you are so much like me you just can't help it, but I really wanna get out of this off topic conversation so I'm gonna let you have the last word so just please don't ask me any questions okay? Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 04:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
but I really wanna get out of this off topic conversation - usually best achieved by not saying anything more. Anyway, the reason someone might "mix SIRS with CORPDEPTH" is that these are sections of the NCORP guidance, and if you don't understand that guidance, you should not be commenting on AfD's in this area. The meta discussion, if you wish to pursue it, is better placed in an RfC somewhere on the guidance (not that I would recommend that). What matters here is that this article fails against NCORP. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks a whole heck of a lot for that comment. Now you've forced me to have to justify commenting here after you just advised me that all I have to do is not reply if I don't want to be involved in the discussion. That's just great. Anyway, it should be fairly obvious to anyone that just because two different things appear in the same page and on the same guideline does not mean that they have to be talking about the same thing. I just provided you a perfectly good example of this above with NNC. The notability guideline deals with the idea about whether a topic should have its own article or not while NNC is about the fact that article content itself is not regulated by notability guidelines. Two different things on the same page in the same guideline. Now, please stop making personal remarks about me so I can leave this discussion in peace because I already apologized for the ones that I made about you and I'm going to go back and strike them as well as the ones I made about Nythar as soon as I get the opportunity. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Venue reviews are not routine sources. Veenhuyzen 2014 is a 285-word review. Bennett 2010 is a 347-word review. Broadsheet 2017 is a 149-word review. McCarthy 2018 is a 249-word review. These reviews are all about William Street Bird and all meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage. These reviews are both functionally and intellectually independent from William Street Bird, so they meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources. The Sunday Times had a circulation of over 250,000 in 2013 and is distributed throughout the state of Western Australia. It meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience, which requires "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source".
Nythar wrote above, "the subject does not stand out. Like I said, you can find an article on almost anything if you search deeply enough, but those sources need to prove that the subject stands out and is particularly notable (i.e., more notable than other similar venues)." There is no requirement in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) that a venue must "stand out" or be "more notable than other similar venues". There is a requirement in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria only that the venue "has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". The venue reviews allow the venue to meet the requirement.
Cunard (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And yours was a 217 word comment! Western Australia has a population of 2.8 million with the vast majority (2.1 million) living in Perth. The review is from the "Sunday Style (Perth, Australia)" section. This is routine coverage of a local business. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Certain things that are average, normal, or run-of-the-mill do not "stand out" from other similar things. You claim these sources demonstrate SIGCOV, and I disagree because the sources don't prove that this venue is more notable than any other non-notable venue. SIGCOV is not as simple as "a two-hundred-word review exists." WP:NCORP states that local coverage is insignificant coverage (meaning the subject is not notable enough for an international audience). Every source you've provided above either falls under local coverage or is simply too short to be worth counting towards SIGCOV. And like Sirfurboy said, the population of Western Australia mostly resides in Perth (79% I believe), so that newspaper you cited can be considered to be local coverage. SIGCOV sources would examine the Bird more thoroughly, and would prove the Bird is notable beyond its local scene. Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) does not require companies to "stand out". The Sunday Times is a newspaper distributed throughout the state of Western Australia so meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience, which requires "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source". Cunard (talk) 08:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the article you're referring to:

IS it The Bird? Yes. Is it plain? No, it’s super fresh.
Sure, this pokey, charmingly DIY room serves drinks from midday, but it’s as much a place for enjoying art and song as it is somewhere to whet the whistle.
The promoters of Friday’s Kanye West concert probably didn’t have The Bird on their venue shortlist, nor are you likely to find a Rembrandt displayed here.
But as an incubator for some of Perth’s more niche artists, The Bird nails it. Psych rockers, quirky illustrators, crate-diggers: these are just some of the people whose handiwork one can admire with a cold – and fairly priced – drink in hand.
A succinct wine list that includes Mitolo pinot grigio ($9 a glass) proves it’s possible, even for venues that aren’t particularly wine-minded, to serve interesting vino at reasonable prices.
The cider and beer range observes a similar mantra with Feral’s Sly Fox summer ale one of four brews available as an $8 pint.
The Bird is also licensed to sell takeaway alcohol, which is handy for revellers keen to kick on once the party’s over.
The bar team, meanwhile, hasn’t gone too crazy with its cocktails, electing instead to stick with dependables such as the Bloody Mary ($17) and Dark ‘n’ Stormy ($20).
Don’t be put off by The Bird’s alternative leanings. Despite championing the non-mainstream, the venue and its staff extend a warm welcome to all, from lone wolves with a midday thirst to parties of dolled-up girls out to paint the town red.
The setting, while sparse, is tidy and clean (except for when smokers light up out the back), the bartenders’ smiles are genuine and The Bird proves originality is alive in Northbridge.
THE DETAILS 181 William St, Northbridge6142 3513 î williamstreetbird.com Mon-Sat, noon-midnight; Sun noon-10pm THE SCORE***1/2

What part of this significantly describes the Bird? This is one of the most non-SIGCOV sources I have seen on Wikipedia. Where's the thorough analysis/description? All I see is an advertisement with no information pertaining to the venue's history. Besides the nonexistent SIGCOV, this article claims the Bird is an incubator for some of Perth’s more niche artists, indicating that it is local coverage. The article also falls under the category of "Perth, Australia", which can be seen at the top. Nythar (💬-🍀) 08:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an experiment: assume you were asked to write an article based on this source alone. After all, you claim it significantly covers the subject, so assuming that there are no other sources available from which you may derive information, and since this source's coverage is "significant", you should at least be able to write an article that sufficiently describes the subject without any PROMO influences. Now re-review The Sunday Times' article and try to find meaningful information that isn't trivial. (You can try doing this with any of the other sources you provided, and you'll see that there's hardly a bit of non-trivial coverage in most of them.) Nythar (💬-🍀) 09:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to insist that you stop this off topic hypothetical line of query and cease the badgering of other editors with experimental theories that are not grounded in any policy. SIGCOV does not require a source to be able to support an article, and you need to stop advancing this line of argument now. You are pushing it too far. Huggums537 (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only saying this because the line of experimental questioning has become disruptive and irritating. ~~I'm done being experimented on.~~ [Please stop experimenting on us.] Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 11:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC) Updated on 12:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per the assessment of Cunard. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Above you say: Um, I think you are confused. Sources don't have to pass any kind of a notability test. This is incorrect. From WP:SIRS:
Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability.
1. Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
2. Be completely independent of the article subject.
3. Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
4. Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.

Moreover, under significance, the WP:PRODUCTREV guidance states: The reviews must be published outside of purely local [...] interest publications. Articles in the "Sunday Style (Perth, Australia)" section of a paper, telling you the price of drinks in a club are local interest, clearly. This is the quality of the sources, and per policy, these sources do not pass the required notability test, and per Nythar there is no way an encyclopaedia article can be written from these sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You took my comment out of context. It wasn't intended to be a single statement alone, but meant to make a point to the other editor about how a single source doesn't have to support an article. If you want to pick out whatever part of other peoples words might be technically incorrect, then please find somebody else to debate with. And please, drop the non-policy based argument that an article can't be written with that source. It isn't required to, and believe it or not, people can actually really get in trouble for not listening when someone tells them they are getting out of line because they do sometimes make a big deal about Wikipedia:Competence is required here. Huggums537 (talk) 11:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Updated on 16:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about out of context. The point is that an encyclopaedic article cannot be written based on any of the sources thus far, as none provide anything that show why this subject is notable. And WP:CORPDEPTH is policy, as are the rest of those guidelines I cited above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see now you said these sources, not that source. My apologies. Huggums537 (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should retract the per Nythar bit since they were talking about a single source. That's why I got confused... Huggums537 (talk) 12:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's enough to meet GNG. (Braces for badgering). Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The source analyses by Nythar above are thorough and accurate. NCORP is extremely straightforward and unambiguous that each source must be SIGCOV SIRS to count toward notability; editors unfamiliar with this guideline should not be !voting on NCORP AfDs. It's also very clear from the guideline that local sources do not contribute to notability either, so all the reviews from Perth must be dismissed (and anything that lists the literal address and/or phone number of the venue is certainly local). Coverage derived from pitches, like the Concrete Playground, are also not independent. That leaves us with basically nothing. JoelleJay (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would personally be lenient about local sources if I were drafting a guideline, but I'm not the one who wrote the guideline, and telling you the price of drinks in a club (as Sirfurboy wrote) is not the kind of coverage that establishes noteworthiness. XOR'easter (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. JoelleJay said what I would have, just more concisely. I'm even sympathetic to XOR's view that local newspapers "should" count for something. But there's really nothing here but promotion and brief mentions. Cunard's additional links don't help: Sunday Times of Perth (local); PerthNow (local); Broadsheet (seems to be national but also to specialize in doing positive reviews of everthing, i.e. promotion); Concrete Playground (ditto). The vast, vast majority of venues like this should never have WP articles, per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Northbridge, Western Australia and add a brief 1-2 sentence description in the "Culture" section of the proposed redirect target. Not independently notable but a reasonable search term. Frank Anchor 13:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Virtually ALL local publications about local businesses are SPONSORED ("infomercials") – no current business model for newspapers allows for free advertisements. Therefore, I don't believe that any local "review" was independent from the subject. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could say that about any news media source since they all advertise, and so they will always profit from anything they are reporting on no matter if there is sponsorship related to what they report about or not. Plus, we have no way to determine which things they report on are sponsor related, and which ones are not unless they tell us directly this report was brought to you by so and so, and most reputable reporting agencies (even local ones) will do this in some form. Huggums537 (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, the problem is much wider than this particular article. However, truly notable businesses will also have significant in-depth coverage, positive or negative (e.g., Nestlé, Ford) or be notable in other ways (e.g. company size, innovation, stock listings, etc.). A restaurant that is mentioned only in the local media and only because it exists and is open to business – is positively non-notable. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood. I wasn't saying there was a problem wider than the article. I was saying that your "problem" with local publications doing advertising and sponsorships is only an imagined one because it isn't unique to local publications since all publications and news media outlets do this. If what you were saying was true, then we couldn't use any publication or news media service as independent no matter if it were local or not. If your real argument was the fact that this article wasn't notable enough to have worldwide coverage like Nestle or Ford, then the argument isn't valid since there is no requirement for any article to have worlwide or even national coverage like OTHERSTUFF does. The tired old argument that if something really is notable, then it will be known all over the world is really stupid. There is all kinds of stuff only small groups of experts know or care about that is notable, and the only place you can find "coverage" for it is in a handful of journals... Huggums537 (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could say it virtually about any local business. I'd venture to say that every restaurant larger than three tables has made sure to be known locally, be it through local press or radio or telephone directories. I never said that I require worldwide notability: I only expect notability independent from the subject. Nestlé is notable for various reasons, including the worldwide Nestlé boycott, while Ford Motor Company has its place in history also due to the pioneering implementation of the assembly line concept.

Yes, most local publications are unreliable in establishing notability – our key policy states that Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large. We also have a plethora of other policies and guidelines around the reputation of sources and the potentially WP:SPONSORED content.

Now let me know please what's so notable about that restaurant that can be found in independent, unsponsored sources. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement that sources be unsponsored. Have you not read WP:SPONSORED? It clearly says what I was explaining to you before, Reliable publications clearly indicate sponsored articles in the byline or with a disclaimer at the top of the article.. Huggums537 (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood me. It's not about advertisements, which indeed are usually marked as such. It's about that particular service that media provide for money: generating buzz. Any media article whose obvious role is to generate buzz about a commercial enterprise is, with absolute certainty, sponsored.

If you believe that media companies ("reliable", "unreliable", doesn't matter) are gladly paying their staff to write about random restaurants for nothing in return, you fail to understand how media business works. — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG with sources presented by Cunard. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources can be reliable and in-depth and still fail AUD, which these do. JoelleJay (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources can be reliable and in-depth and I believe they really meet WP:GNG as demonstrated by Cunard. You can never change my mind. SBKSPP (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Cunard's sources. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Inclined to agree with SMcCandlish, the point of AUD is to avoid independent but indiscriminate sources. May review in more detail later. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This meets GNG per Cunard's analysis. So long as the article meets GNG, it doesn't matter if it fails NCORP. I also think an interesting analogy is to NSONG, which provides that notable sources include[ ] published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries or reviews. Until a music venue has been around for a while (e.g., Webster Hall), it's likely that most of the sources on it will be reviews. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So long as the article meets GNG, it doesn't matter if it fails NCORP. @Voorts, this is incorrect. NCORP prescribes which sources and coverage count towards GNG; an NCORP subject by definition cannot meet GNG if it doesn't meet NCORP. From WP:N: SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as [...] the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies. JoelleJay (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources presented above pass the GNG criteria anyway. Nythar (💬-🍀) 04:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Brune[edit]

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

I did a WP:BEFORE and didn't find any sigcov for this after @Darklordofpinup: pointed out the lack of notability. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Women. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Googling leads to only social media. Adler3 (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm not clear as to the reason for this or what needs to be done, but I'm happy to make any needed adjustments. If I'm understanding this, 'darklordofpinup' said this needs to be done? That name being attached to this issue raises red flags as to the legitimacy of the complaint. I'm very aware of who is attached to that name and they have a tendency to show up every few years to verbally assault Nicole's carreer until they find a new distraction and show up again years later. They were recently blocked on instagram due to harrasment.

What is a "sigcov"

thanks for the help! Elcack (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Sigcov" is an abbreviation of "significant coverage", and it's one of the requirement for a citation source to be seen as adequate. You can read more about it in WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poorly composed article, which relies exclusively on trivial mentions and non-independent sites (like link to purchase product from the subject). Searching online, I only found more trivial mentions, promotional pieces, and one coverage about a horse racer with the same name. Seems like a WP:PROMO to me. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not finding any reliable sources for this comic book artist. No way to bring this up to notable. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This promotional entry on a non-notable artist Fails WP:GNG, WP:NARTIST, WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. I removed the "source" that was a bare url link to an advertorial sales site. The article is poorly formatted and the current sourcing consists of one trivial mention, one does not mention her at all, and two are photo caption mentions. Netherzone (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. In addition to sustaining a numerical majority, editors favoring deletion made guideline-backed arguments regarding the absence of lasting coverage and failure to meet WP:CRIME that were not rebutted. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Bentler[edit]

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

Routine murderer who does not appear to have any encyclopedic notability. No post-conviction / non-news coverage located on a search. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Iowa. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Although the subject may be a case of WP:1E, this is not a case of WP:ROUTINE as there are some sources online that provide significant coverage for the subject, e.g. interviews. Timothytyy (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are typically regarded as primary sources and do not support a claim to notability. Criminals are often newsworthy; many have been interviewed by the media. What about these interviews makes Bentler or his crimes not routine? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are actually numerous sources (non-interview) that provide SIGCOV for the subject. But if this is deleted per 1E I won't oppose. Timothytyy (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of coverage and the murder of five people can never be described as "routine". -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it can. It's a terrible tragedy but it is, in the grand scope of humanity, a fairly routine one. What matters for the purposes of this project is whether or not the news coverage goes beyond the local area, whether there were any lasting implications to the crime (laws changed, culture altered), and whether coverage outlasted the news cycle and entered the realm of secondary analysis, none of which appears to be the case here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the western world, only in America, sadly. To the rest of us it would never be routine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a policy-based argument to put forth, or are you just here to provide social commentary? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No lasting or notable coverage outside the Iowa area. TheAmazingRaspberry (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

::Keep

Some further sources are:

https://www.southeastiowaunion.com/p/Bentler-reacts-to-family-s-deaths-during-interview/52431/

https://www.themidwestcrimefiles.com/post/parricide-the-stories-of-shawn-bentler-mark-gibbs

https://medium.com/crimebeat/the-false-entitlement-of-a-man-seeking-his-parents-fortune-5b2c9cedffdd

I think that there are enough reliable sources about this person to keep and improve this article. (Also it cannot be renamed to the Murder of ___ because there were multiple people killed.) Adler3 (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been CU-blocked, but the sources in question are 1) a local news story which provides no indication of lasting notability 2) a blog, which as we all know are not reliable sources and 3) a post on Medium, a blog-hosting service that is (one more time ladies and gents) not reliable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per sources identified by Adler3 Jack4576 (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:CRIME. The sources provided by Adler3 are marginal at best. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom et al. Non-notable murderer, and not enough coverage from reliable sources to warrant a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:03, 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 merge‎ to Christianity in Bangladesh. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Council of Churches in Bangladesh[edit]

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

Christianity in Bangladesh is obviously notable, but is this particular organization notable? Many directory listings confirm the current two sentences. Searches also found brief listings of what denominations were part of the organization.[76][77] Searches did not find significant coverage that provides in-depth description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the organization - coverage that would make it possible to write a reasonably complete article about its history, activities, finances, leadership, etc., instead of the current very brief, incomplete stub. So it does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH, and should not be the subject of a stand alone article. If it is felt significant enough to be worth a mention in Christianity in Bangladesh, I would have no objection to a merge to that target. Worldbruce (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is presumably an umbrella body for a number of Christian denominations in Bangladesh. As such it should be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Peterkingiron: Notability is not inherited, so an organization is not notable just for having notable members (being an "umbrella") or for being a member of another organization that is notable. Can you share evidence of notability based on coverage in sources that meet WP:ORGCRIT? --Worldbruce (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's more than a page describing its history here[78], there's another good chunk here[79], there are a number of directories such as this one[80] that provide additional time-specific data. This encyclopedia article[81] describes its relationship with the All Pakistan Christian Council, of which it was a constituent part and then a successor. --Jahaza (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone is looking for potential sources this seems to be known colloquially as the "Bangladesh National Council of Churches" as well as the two official names given in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Out of the four sources provided by Jahaza above, the first three are publications from World Council of Churches, which the subject belongs to; and the last one only has a trivial mention of the subject. I did not find any coverage more than just trivial mentions as well. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tutwakhamoe. Although I appreciate the effort to find sources, they all fail WP:SIGCOV. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 03:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The newly given sources are not independent of the subject. Adler3 (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Contrary to Tutwakhamoe's argument above, I don't agree that World Council of Churches publications are an inappropriate source for demonstrating notability of its member bodies. That seems to me to be an overly stringent reading of the requirement for sources that are "independent of the subject". I'm also mindful of the problem with deleting things as "non-notable" when they come from non-English speaking developing countries – quite probably sources to demonstrate notability exist (maybe in a library in Bangladesh?) but nobody here is going to find them – and deleting will just worsen some of Wikipedia's systematic biases. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 06:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to Human Rights Watch they are also called the "Jatiya Church Parishad of Bangladesh". Searching for them under that name finds a chapter in an academic monograph which contains a 3 page long discussion of their important contribution to public debate over reform of Bangladeshi personal law. Looks like WP:SIGCOV to me. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Christianity in Bangladesh. The provided sources could be used to create a section on the legal reform in Bangladesh backed by this group, but are nowhere near meeting WP:ORGCRITE for the group itself. In addition to searching for the article title and variations, I also tried searching for "Jatiya Church Parishad" and was unable to find anything on Google Scholar, Books, the general internet, and my university library. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To mind systemic bias, I would suggest searching for sources not just in English. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tried searching for ""জাতীয় চার্চ পরিষদ", their name as given on their website sans "Bangladesh", which turned up news sources briefly mentioning NCC's involvement or endorsement with various topics (e.g. [82]), but nothing that would be useful for writing a Wikipedia article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your word, I vote merge as above. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I think that there probably are sources out there somewhere (read: in a library, in Bangladeshi, and not well-indexed), but with what we've got, the best information we can provide to a reader is a few sentences at the Christianity in Bangladesh (or alternatively, ,Freedom of religion in Bangladesh) about the reform bill they supported that we can verify at this time. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert L Fletcher[edit]

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

Sources are purely local in nature, not showing any achievements that would make the individual at GNG. I can't find any sources, the name is too common. Oaktree b (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Arizona. AllyD (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Significantly edited since nomination, worth a second look.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as there are over thirty sources that establish notability about this individual. His achievements include the formation of the C.A.P., the establishment of Fletcher Enterprises and its subsidiary Cobre Tire Company, and his company's, Fletcher Racing, participation in the California 500 and the Indianapolis 500. Meets WP:GNG.

WhichUser AmI 01:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WhichUserAmI. Article is clearly in a much better shape than it was before. Meets GNG and is definitely worth keeping. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:08, 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 01:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SKUvantage[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously soft deleted. The editor who created this article requested undeletion with the reason This is a business with an interesting history and story, with over 50 employees, a market leader and innovator in its field and was acquired in 2021 by Salsify Inc., after 9 years of operating. There is more history to tell. There are many other articles about smaller or niche businesses that are on Wikipedia - not sure why SKUvantage would be singled out for deletion in this way. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. Nor being over 50 employees. Still fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, and the article is very promotional. Couldn't find anything online besides what's already in the article. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Companies, and Australia. DreamRimmer (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have updated this article to remove the promotional aspects. We believe SKUvantage is notable due to the way it has solved the challenge of its industry (product data sharing), leading to its successful acquisition. Pcaronna (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we"? Are you a representative of the company? LibStar (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no SIGCOV; we don't keep pages based on whether the subjects are innovative, we keep them based on whether they're notable. AryKun (talk) 06:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood - the intention was to highlight its innovative approach to the market as a reason for it to be referenced by others, and acquired.

I have added more citations to hopefully convince you of the notability of this business. It would not have been acquired by a major US business if it was just a "photography business" as Nate suggests below. Over the past 11 years, this business has been instrumental in driving digital commerce in Australia with its B2B technology and services. Pcaronna (talk) 04:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JML1148 Dancing Dollar ^{(let's talk)} 14:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is 2,000 SEO-refined words about a business which is just 'photographer and writer-upper of AliExpress-sold junk'. Nate • (chatter) 20:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly haven't reviewed what the business actually does. SKUvantage is primarily a technology business with photography a complementary service. It would be disappointing to say the least, if editors of Wikipedia take arbitrary decisions based on uninformed views like this. Pcaronna (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, why would you consider SKUvantage any less interesting than the pages you have created for arguably "just another commercial radio station", which have niche audiences, and minimal citations. I don't mean this in a mean spirited way, I am genuinely curious. Pcaronna (talk) 04:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't really care whether the subject of the article is innovative or not, or whether it's interesting. All we care about is whether it is notable, as evidenced by a significant amount of coverage in independent, reliable sources. This means the coverage can't be in press releases, in company magazines, paid coverage, or brief, passing mentions. All of those random radio stations are important to some or the other community, and so have several local newspapers report on them, leading to enough significant coverage for an article. AryKun (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, since you seem to be affiliated with the company, a word of advice; please don't make an article about yourself or pay one of those wikipedia article companies to make one. If your company is notable enough for an article, someone will make it. We hate conflict-of-interest or paid creations here, and an article that seems promotional is more likely to be instantly deleted because we're sick of them. AryKun (talk) 04:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AryKun , I think you meant another word instead of notable here? We don't really care whether the subject of the article is notable or not LibStar (talk) 05:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, yeah, sorry for the typo. Thanks LibStar. AryKun (talk) 05:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine. We won't be doing that. 101.114.73.174 (talk) 04:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly cited (can find nothing better), promotional and fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 23:36, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Barrettsmith[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSINGER; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Television, and Illinois. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Jpcase.
WhichUser AmI 01:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Does not fail WP:NSINGER. Her album charted on Billboard. --Jpcase (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It peaked at No. 36. That meets the criteria for notability? I'm genuinely asking. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Any placement on Billboard should generally be considered enough to establish notability. WP:NSINGER simply says that notability is shown if an artist "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." It doesn't say that the single or album has to reach an especially high point on the chart. --Jpcase (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And even those Billboard subcharts qualify? I read through WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS, but all of the different iterations of Billboard charts were confusing. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not aware of any Billboard chart that wouldn't be considered a major chart for notability purposes. Barrettsmith's album charted on the Top Christian Albums chart, which certainly qualifies. It apparently also charted on the Heatseekers chart, (though her Billboard page doesn't seem to be online anymore, and unfortunately, it seems that the Way Back Machine only archived the page showing her placement on the Christian chart). --Jpcase (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, Brooke here!

I meet several criteria. Here they are by number:

Criterion 1

a) My self-titled album release on Essential/Provident/Sony BMG in 2008 - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B006P8JUU2/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3T96CHX2AB1K3&keywords=brooke+barrettsmith&qid=1684802487&sprefix=%2Caps%2C96&sr=8-1

b) Several notable print publications. I can find more if you'd like me to dive deeper into my storage space - https://bbarrettsmith.wixsite.com/bb-photos

Criterion 2

a) Billboard's Top Christian Album chart

b) Billboard's Heatseekers Albums chart

(Maybe call Provident for a backdated resource. My former A&R rep is still there and he can confirm.)

Criterion 4

a) Opening act on Pillar's national tour "For the Love of the Game" in 2008. Many resources online covered this tour. Here's one - https://www.jesusfreakhideout.com/news/2008/01/28.PILLAR%20ANNOUNCES%20FOR%20THE%20LOVE%20OF%20THE%20GAME%20TOUR%20DATES.asp

b) Opening act on BarlowGirl's national tour "Million Voices Tour" in 2008. Many resources online covered this tour. Here's one - https://www.jesusfreakhideout.com/news/2008/09/03.BarlowGirl%20To%20Release%20First%20Holiday%20Project%20Home%20For%20Christmas.asp

Criterion 11

a) I was in rotation on several Christian radio stations in 2008-2010 across the country. 90.1 WMBI, K-Love stations, The Fish stations, etc. (Most cities we toured through played my music on rotation, if only for that season. Please call them or Provident for a backlog.) Positivelynonegatives (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the Billboard Top Heatseekers chart link. I peaked at number 40: https://books.google.com/books?id=EhQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA49&dq=billboard+barrettsmith&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjl1fiFoor_AhXakYkEHYwOBPYQ6AF6BAgKEAI#v=onepage&q=billboard%20barrettsmith&f=false Positivelynonegatives (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Charted on Billboard, so WP:NSINGER is fulfilled. 23:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Keep: In addition to the above, she has been profiled by the Arlington Heights Daily Herald ("Faith leads Spring Grove woman into limelight") and had her album reviewed by the Great Falls Tribune ("Barrettsmith's new album offers clean, but forgettable, tunes"); there is also a capsule (editorial, not user-generated) review in All Music Guide. Being on a reality show does not automatically fail WP:NSINGER or override WP:GNG. Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as charted on a Billboard chart and also has christian music reliable sources coverage Atlantic306 (talk) 21:26, 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. Per strength of arguments 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Gomez[edit]

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

Absolutely fails WP:NSINGER; not an American Idol finalist; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Television. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Dayton Daily News article is specifically about this singer, SIGCOV therefore GNG Jack4576 (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Her hometown newspaper running an article after she was eliminated during the semifinals does not constitute WP:SIGCOV. If she were a finalist, I'd just redirect the article, but she's not. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I haven't done much searching, so it's possible that there could be more sources out there, but redirecting this to the appropriate season article seems like a reasonable course. She was a semi-finalist, she was on multiple voting round episodes, it seems reasonable to assume that some people will be searching for her on Wikipedia. Deleting the article outright doesn't feel necessary. But the one source from Dayton Daily News is only about her time on Idol, and while I tend to support keeping standalone articles for American Idol finalists, we don't need articles on every semifinalist. --Jpcase (talk) 01:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Hahn, Kortny (2019-09-11). "American Idol Star lights up the Opera House". Cheboygan Daily Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.
  The article notes: "Gomez got her start singing with her family band in Dayton, Ohio. Her first performance was when she was eight years old and she hasn't looked back since. Then, four years ago, she found herself on the hit TV show America Idol, which has produced famous singers such as Scotty McCreery and Carrie Underwood. ... After being on that show, she went on to start recording her own albums and going on tour, singing her songs to the public."
2. Almeter, Danielle (2018-09-07). "Wright-Patt's Band of Flight joins Alexis Gomez for country concert". Dayton Daily News. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.
  The article notes: "Gomez, a graduate of Centerville High School and Wright State University, was a Top 16 finalist on Season 14 of “American Idol” in 2015. She went on to compete as a Top 10 finalist in “Nash Next” in 2016 and 2017, and has continued her singing career following these competitions by performing around the local area this summer."
3. "Gomez to sing at Versailles Christian Church". Sidney Daily News. 2015-08-26. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.
  The article notes: "Gomez grew up in the Dayton area and has been singing and playing music for as long as she can remember. She plays guitar, piano and dabbles around with a few other instruments to include banjo, bass and drums. Her songwriting has been recognized in recent years as she has won a number of local contests where’s she’s been given the opportunity to showcase some of her original music. She plays locally with her band, The Mad River Band, as well as with a variety of bands in Nashville, Tennessee, on the Broadway strip."
4. "Best of Dayton 2018: Meet Dayton's Top Rising Stars". Dayton.com. Cox Enterprises. 2019-02-15. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.
  The article notes: "Centerville and Wright State graduate Alexis Gomez is best known as the semi-finalist on the hit FOX show American Idol (Season 14). She also was a finalist in the Nash Next National Contest in 2016 to find the next Rising Country Star."
5. "Gomez to perform with U.S. Band of Flight". Fairborn Daily Herald. 2018-10-10. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.
  The article notes: "Gomez, a graduate of Centerville High School and Wright State University, was a semi-finalist on the hit show “American Idol” (Season 14). The multi-instrumentalist went on to compete as a finalist in “Nash Next” in 2016 and 2017, and has opened for artists such as Randy Hauser, Midland, Montgomery Gentry, Cassadee Pope, Clint Black and Old Dominion."
6. Mowen Jr, Eddie (2022-08-18). "American Idol finalist plays PCHS". The Register Herald. AIM Media Management. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.
  The article notes: "A former American Idol contender played the Preble County Historical Society Amphitheater last Friday night, for an excited crowd of fans of all ages. ... Gomez played for a two hours and covered major country hits from artists ranging from Johnny Cash to Carrie Underwood. The concert brought in approximately 160 guests and 80 percent of them had never been to the venue, White said."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Alexis Gomez to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 12:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cunard Do any of the sources that you found mention her self-titled debut album? I'm somewhat leaning towards switching my vote to a weak keep, on the basis of her performing as an opener for so many major acts, but it would help if there's any coverage out there for her album. --Jpcase (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for reviewing the additional sources I found, Jpcase (talk · contribs). I think the coverage of her work as an opener and performer allows her to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. According to this entry in AllMusic, her album is titled Alexis Gomez and was released on 31 August 2015. I searched for sources about the album and could not find coverage of it. Cunard (talk) 06:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is not notable Dancing Dollar ^{(let's talk)} 14:08, 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.