Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 10 October 12 >

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 no consensus‎. Numerically, there are more editors arguing to Keep this article but those advocating Deletion have, I believe, done their due diligence reviewing sources that were available to view and I don't want to discount their opinions. And those arguing Keep are relying on off-line sources that not all editors took the time to assess or that weren't always available for review.

For those editors who don't believe the subject warrants a standalone article and bring this article back to AFD in the future, I'd follow this nominator's recommendation and suggest a Merge or Redirect rather than a straight Deletion as this character clearly has editors willing to go to great lengths to ensure their continued presence on the project on some level. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Cunningham[edit]

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

"a fictional character from the British Channel 4 soap opera Hollyoaks". Very poorly referenced plot summary that fails WP:GNG. No reception, just said plot summary in 'storylines' seciton, then a few remarks by actors from the show about that character in 'development' section that mostly deal not with the character but with relationships between actors in the show. Current sources are two media articles that mention the character in passing (failing WP:SIGCOV) and my BEFORE yielded nothing better. Per WP:SOFTDELETE, we can consider redirecting to the List of Hollyoaks characters. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fictional elements, Television, and United Kingdom. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:BEFORE shows only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, and this article doesn't pass the threshold for WP:SIGCOV. Would also support a redirect per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has SIGCOV in sources such as here and here. – Meena • 12:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are low quality plot summaries. Where's the analysis? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the development and reception section shows notability and the sources show SIGCOV. The development is not plot, it talks about the development of the character and the actor's views of the storylines and characters, which is significant. Additionally, the storyline section does not need to source per the storyline guidelines at WP:SOAPS. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WikiProject does not get to overrule community consensus such as WP:V. Unreferenced plot summaries can be removed. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per MOS:PLOTSOURCE, plots and storyline sections do not need to be sourced. We can help source it but this is currently not an issue. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to Strong keep due to the amount of sources added that demonstrate clear notability and SIGCOV through sources covering the character in depth. The development section is now really detailed and extensive (and fully sourced of course) and show the real life information relating to the character. The reception has also been improved and further illustrates the notability. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Helen and all the recent AFDs concerning Hollyoaks characters, were regular characters on television around five times a week. The show was broadcast in multiple countries when Helen was featured. The show had more than 3M viewers when Helen was featured. This is likely to generate sources, but linkrot and the character not being on-screen for nearly 20 years makes it difficult because you have to go back and find the sources. Helen and the other articles just need a little work, researching and sources adding. I feel obliged to keep adding sources rather than enjoy working on the project.Rain the 1 20:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to List of Hollyoaks characters (1997)#Helen Cunningham. It's hard to decide the notability of fictional elements, especially for a character who appeared in a soap opera. Through a normal Google search I only found articles about the show itself or some WP:CRUFTy trivia or plot summary, and Google Scholar gives limited results. Perhaps someone with access to reliable British newspapers can help find sources that talk about the character in a way that SIGCOV is met, but for now, I'm towards redirecting the article until sources are found to restore it. If sources are found, please let us know here. Spinixster (chat!) 14:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Those advocating Keep need to demonstrate SIGCOV, not mere passing mentions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – the sources Added by Meena, Raintheone and JuneGloom07 show clear SIGCOV. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC) Pinging @Spinixster: as you asked to be pinged if sources were added. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot access the offline sources, however, the sources that are on the article right now does not prove notability to the character.
    • The first Free Library source is an interview and only briefly mentions Helen.
    • Same with the second Free Library source.
    • Digital Spy source only briefly mentions about how the show pays tribute to the character in an episode.
    • Fourth Free Library source only briefly mentions that Mr. C and Helen died in a car crash.
    • Book source would technically be primary because it is co-written by the show's creator and it's a companion book. I cannot access this source, however, but I just want to make it clear.
    Do note that SIGCOV means addresses the topic directly and in detail, and no sources listed here so far address the character directly and in detail. WP:FICT also says Articles on fiction elements are expected to cover more about "real-world" aspects of the element, such as its development and reception, than "in-universe" details. Spinixster (chat!) 01:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am referring to the offline one (as in that's why I said the ones that have been added...), as they discuss the character in depth. I know you cannot access them, but showing good faith for them would be appreciated as this character was popular and on air back when the internet was not used as much, so the sources relating to her are mainly offline. Also, those sources do discuss the character in detail regarding the real life context, which I specifically wrote about in my comments above. I would like to ping @Raintheone: as they can tell you more about the sources that show SIGCOV. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Offline materials can be scared and shared, on file sharing platforms for example. This may fall under fair use if it is just for the purpose of this discussion, and sharing is set to private (just for folks with the link). If I see SIGCOV myself I would even withdraw the nomination myself. Please ping me if any materials are shared with me. I could also accept them by email. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Raintheone:, are you able to do this? No worries if not, but I wanted to ping you DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to List of Hollyoaks characters (1997) per User:Spinixster. I think if there is not enough material for the article to pass SIGCOV guidelines and standalone, then merging the sourced content to the list is the best course of action. And this is probably not the best place, but I wish these articles weren't taken straight to AfD. It's like all the other steps to resolve the state of the article is skipped over. There never seems to be a real attempt to search for sources, or hold a discussion about it with either the original creator (if possible) or WP:SOAPS editors. The PROD process also seems to get forgotten about, but might encourage editors to work on the article more than an AfD. I don't know... - JuneGloom07 Talk 21:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Kinda leaning towards keep because of the work put in by User:Raintheone. I think it passes WP:GNG. - JuneGloom07 Talk 21:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - Can everyone who has taken part in the discussion so far please revisit this. Compare the article to the day it was nominated ([1]) to now ([2])? I have tried to improve the article since it was my responsibility wanting it to be kept. I understand there are primary sources such as the show's official website, used to include information about Helen's characterisation. There are offline/AGF sources that meet SIGCOV discussing her storylines, including interviews with cast members. I have added reception which mention opinion about Helen. Sorry I delayed any significant improvement until today - I had hoped someone else would have taken this one on.Rain the 1 19:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have noticed a request above for an upload of the offline sources. I have uploaded photographs here. They are on a 24 expiry link since the articles are copyrighted. Pinging as requested, @Piotrus:. Pinging others involved who have mentioned the issue during this AFD: @Spinixster:@Meena:@Liz:@Shooterwalker:@JuneGloom07:@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: - Thank you.Rain the 1 20:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I revieweed the first four. There are just plot summaries, and I am not even sure they all mention her. The most substantial number 3 also contains some thoughts on another actor on the actress playing Helen. I am not seeing how this is relevant or meets SIGCOV. PS. I've reviwed the Reception section added ot the article, and I fear this is the usual case of "cobbled from passing mentions" that for example is routinly not enough to save game or animation characters. That said, I fully support merging that section to a relevant list. Plot summary loss is inconsequential (that what fandom is for), but even a cobbled reception like this has encyclopedic value and fandom does not care for this stuff. However, a stand-alone article IMHO is still not warranted. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are 7 interviews with Hollyoaks cast members about Helen's stories. They form sections of the development section I have added to explain Helen's development within the show. The remainder were used in reception besides one. This was used to cite the claim that Hollyoaks did not publicise Helen's death storyline in advance. Each source mentions the fictional character Helen/Mrs C which is why they are used as a source. Helen is a fictional character and the interviewed cast discuss Helen in addition to the actress. The discussion about the actress is not what has been sourced in the article. Facts about Kathryn George's portrayal of Helen have been included. This subject may not be high brow. It was boring to edit. This is a Wikipedia article not a fandom article and I improved it for Wikipedia. AFG was not given in response and a request to upload offline sources was made. A decision has been returned but not all the sources I provided were checked over. Do we know make decisions without checking all the facts.. What good faith exists here..Rain the 1 06:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you User:Raintheone for uploading the offline sources. But what ever happened to AGF? - JuneGloom07 Talk 21:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Raintheone:. I am saddened by the lack of AGF. I completely understand that editors are busy, but I wish that others could have looked at the other sources and not just the first 4. I saw the sources and I remember that the first 4 were about Helen's death and her death being revisited in 2017. First of all, they did all mention her. Second of all, the ones about the 2017 mentioned her death a lot, thus illustrating the impact of the character – if she was not notable, the magazines would not be reporting about the fictional person behind her death 13 year later. Same with her affair with Tony (I think that source was the last one) – it was fully in detail about Tony and Helen's affair and the impact the storyline was having on the actors and viewers, and if it was not notable the soap opera magazines would not be doing features and interviews on it. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A lot of work has been done on this article since its nomination. A source analysis of old and new sources would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the source upload page has expired, this is not very likely. In either case, it would be good to hear from someone who is not a member of the SOAPS as well. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I have created a new link with those offline sources once again - hereRain the 1 18:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep the article has vastly improved since the nomination 5 albert square (talk) 06:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. There has been plenty of work done with this article. It contains reliable sources and interviews that are all relevant to the subject matter. Soaper1234 - talk 20:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am very puzzled by the comments above stating that the article is well sourced. I spent an hour looking at all the online sources and as far as I can tell not a single one of them contributes to notability:
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://web.archive.org/web/20031003020329/http://www.hollyoaks.com/backstage.asp?bs=3&aID=7 No The source is the show's web site Yes Maybe? No Very brief blurb about the actress; does not discuss Helen. ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20031002154533/http://www.hollyoaks.com/backstage.asp?bs=2&cID=7 No The source is the show's web site Yes Maybe? No Brief database entry. ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20021227140411/http://www.hollyoaks.com:80/microsites/default.asp?site=mrc/steamteam Yes The source seems to be usurped? It's an ad for a dry cleaner. No If there is a connection to the show or character I'm not seeing it. No Unrelated to subject. ✘ No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Cunningham#refEvans No Source is Wikipedia No A circular link to the same Wikipedia article No No content. ✘ No
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/SOAP+MUMS%3b+How+screen+mothers+and+daughters+really+get+on+after...-a083638715 Yes Source is Sunday Mail (Glasgow) ? I cannot find discussion of the reliability of the Sunday Mail. No Article is mainly about the actors, one passing mention of Helen. ✘ No
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/1%2c000+and+as+saucy+as+ever%3b+Nick+Foley+on+Hollyoaks'+landmark...-a0100432202 Yes Source is Daily Post (Liverpool). ? I cannot find discussion of the reliability of the Daily Post. No Short article about an unrelated actor; one passing mention of Helen. ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20030415215840/http://www.hollyoaks.com/article.asp?a=02/04/03 No Source is the show's web site. Yes Maybe? No Article is about a different character; does not mention Helen by name but there's a single passing allusion to her. ✘ No
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/the+Insider%3A+Killed+off+in+fine+style-a0114764046 Yes Source is the Liverpool Echo. ? I cannot find discussion of the reliability of the Liverpool Echo. No Very short article; does not mention Helen. ✘ No
https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/milo-entwistle-reveals-killed-hollyoaks-11261033 Yes Source is the Daily Mirror. ~ WP:RSP says no consensus on reliablitly of the Daily Mirror. No Article is about a person who wrote a plot line of the show; passing mentions of Helen. ✘ No
https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/soaps/hollyoaks/hollyoaks-twist-milos-big-secret-revealed-he-killed-the-cunninghams-nathan-morris-reacts/ Yes Source is the Radio Times ? I cannot find discussion of the reliability of the Radio Times No Article is about the same writer and plot line as the Daily Mirror source; passing mentions of Helen. ✘ No
https://www.digitalspy.com/soaps/hollyoaks/a839391/hollyoaks-spoilers-nathan-morris-milo-entwistle-road-crash/ Yes Source is Digital Spy. Yes WP:RSP says Digital Spy is reliable for entertainment. No Article is again about the same writer and plot line as the Daily Mirror source; passing mentions of Helen. ✘ No
https://www.digitalspy.com/soaps/hollyoaks/a30984580/hollyoaks-pays-tribute-gordon-helen-cunningham/ Yes Source is Digital Spy. Yes WP:RSP says Digital Spy is reliable for entertainment. ~ Short article about a tribute to Helen. ~ Partial
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Get+to+C+soap's+only+ghost.-a0113685013 Yes Source is Western Mail (Cardiff) ? I cannot find discussion of the reliability of the Western Mail No Article is about a different character; one passing mention of Helen. ✘ 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}}.

Not entirely accurate. This one is a book source, not Wikipedia itself. Seems like the so called usurped source has an issue. If you click "About us" on the link it reveals the content about Helen. It was the main content when I cited the source. The sources about the actress are relevant to the character. The character is not a real person, facts about Kathryn George's portrayal are relevant. The source about George in which Helen is not mentioned is just used to state she joined the show in 1997. It was never used for anything else, but to aid the general readers understanding. The sources are being analysed without the context they are used in the article. There are also offline sources which I have been good enough to upload. All I have done is try to improve the article by adding real world information and explaining the fiction better than the plot summary fancruft that was originally served up. There are 31 citations used but only the lowest value are singled out. What about the full page interviews with cast I uploaded? They add some value here. I guess the issue is this subject is boring and low brow no matter how much you try and improve it.Rain the 1 02:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No acknowledgement of the offline sources where Helen is mentioned numerous times. This fictional character is from 1997 and remained on-screen until 2004. Helen seems to fair better with offline sources. Perhaps that is because of linkrot and the loss of online content over the past 20-26 years. I will single out some of the offline sources. They give Helen the significant coverage asked for in this AFD:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Halsted station (CTA Orange Line). While there is a great deal of support for Keeping this article, none of those advocating Keep have countered the two source analysis that state that the sources don't support GNG so I'm selecting a Merge closure to the most often mentioned target article. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Halsted Street station (Heritage Corridor)[edit]

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

Currently zero in-depth coverage on this station, and searches did not turn up enough to meet WP:GNG. Was draftified in hopes of improvement, but returned to mainspace without improvement. Onel5969 TT me 08:16, 26 September 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) 08:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage, and the sources cited are either not RS or passing mentions. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The references are adequate, and the Chicago Tribune reference is more than a passing mention. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eastmain. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (article's creator here) for the reasons Eastmain gave. Additionally, Pi.1415926535 recently expanded the article with improved and additional references. Lost on  Belmont  3200N1000W  (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the Trib article consists of 3 sentences about the new station, hardly an in-depth piece. The other 4 are simple mentions. Not sure when one brief blurb amounted to significant enough coverage to pass GNG.Onel5969 TT me 00:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If I find some books at the library in an attempt to meet WP:GNG's criteria, would they count towards mainspace eligibility or not really? Because I would be happy to use them as sources, although it may be difficult to find any that are both independent and reliable. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – now appears sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Useddenim (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per reasons stated above. Many closed train stations similarly have limited information both on and off Wikipedia, but keeping them helps to improve them now and later on. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For the closer, in light of all the !voters above actually ignoring the sourcing, and mostly the WP:OSE arguments, here's an assessment table.
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.newspapers.com/article/chicago-tribune/132466247/ Yes The source is major newspaper Yes The source is reputable published source No Brief 3 sentence blurb which discusses the station. Definitely not in-depth ✘ No
https://www.loc.gov/resource/g4104cm.g01790191103/?sp=59 Yes Yes No Map showing it exists, but zero in-depth coverage ✘ No
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:April_1923_Illinois_Central_Suburban_Trains_West_timetable.pdf No Published by the rail line Yes Yes No No coverage, simply a listing ✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?id=KSA1HTTU-eMC Yes Yes Yes Yes, a major newspaper No Just a brief mention ✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?id=KSA1HTTU-eMC No Published by the rail system Yes Yes, a major newspaper No Just a brief mention in a table ✘ No
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Southwest_Transit_Corridor_Project_Chica/Ddo3AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Halsted+Street+station%22+chicago&pg=RA8-PT59&printsec=frontcover No Published by city No no editorial oversight Yes In-depth ✘ No
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Southwest_Transit_Corridor_Project_Chica/Ddo3AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Halsted+Street+station%22+chicago&pg=RA8-PT59&printsec=frontcover No Published by city No no editorial oversight, no peer review No Brief one-line mention ✘ No
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Southwest_Transit_Corridor_Project_Chica/Ddo3AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Halsted+Street+station%22+chicago&pg=RA8-PT59&printsec=frontcover Yes Independently published No Lulu is a self-publishing site No Brief mention ✘ 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}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input on the sources presented above…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still voting keep for reasons above and currently researching the topic in order to preserve the page. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

::●Keep- I Found This, this, & this PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [reply]

I found this. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Based on the source table given, is not adequately covered to meet notability requirements. I can find scattered mentions of the station, but nothing I'd use to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    most3 of the sources should be partial and not red (1,2,4) PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no such thing as partial. The table automatically calculates based on input. I've added the 3 more non-notable references to the table.Onel5969 TT me 00:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Chicago Tribune(newspapers.com) Yes Major Newspaper Yes Major Newspaper No 3 Scentences ✘ No
Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Chicago, Cook County, Illinois. Yes Yes No Just a Map ✘ No
April 1923 Illinois Central Station... No Published by the Rail Line Yes No Just a Listing ✘ No
Frank Lloyd Wright: His Life and His Architecture Yes Yes Published: John Wiley & Sons, Jan 16, 1991 No Breif Mention ✘ No
Southwest Transit Corridor Project, Chicago Environmental Impact Statement 1985 No ? Yes In Depth ✘ No
Report on the Engineering and Operating Features of the Chicago Transportation Problem Volume 1 Yes Published by: McGraw Publishing Yes Published by: McGraw Publishing No One Line ✘ No
Outside the Rails: A Rail Route Guide from Chicago to La Plata, MO ? No Self Publishing Website Yes 2 Full paragraphs ✘ No
Ridership Trends - Anual Report 2017 No Published By Rail Line Yes ~ Mentioned a Few Times ✘ 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}}.
As I pointed out in my revert, none of the three sources you added refer to this station. Outside the Rails discusses Halsted Street station, Southwest Transit Corridor Project discusses Halsted station (CTA Orange Line), and Report on the Engineering refers to the Halsted cable car barn. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have been searching for books relating to the Alton Railroad and the GM&O, as they would probably be our best bets. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
either way id does not pass GNG PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete doesn't meet GNG requirements to my eyes. Secondary source coverage just isn't there. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Halsted station (CTA Orange Line). The vast majority of stations that survived into the public ownership era easily pass GNG, but there's a handful like this one that probably don't. Merging or redirecting is best for almost any train station, since they're always likely search terms. The Orange Line station is directly across the street from where this station was, so it's an obvious target for the merge. (There's plenty of history to be written about the Orange Line station itself, so it wouldn't be UNDUE.) See Medford/Tufts station and Suffolk Downs station for similar situations where I've incorporated the history of predecessor stations into articles on rapid transit stations. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose delete and the redirect suggested earlier. Torn between keep or merge to Halsted station (CTA Orange Line). If sourcing doesn't pass GNG then merge as an AtD as this station appears to be a predecessor to the current station. Slight problem is there's as much if not more material on this station as things stand than the merge target. Nevertheless, as User:Pi.1415926535 says there's expansion possibilities for that article. Rupples (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tolendi Arystanbekov[edit]

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

No notability. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established. Checked Kazakh article, but don't see additional info. Flurrious (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zeta & Ozz[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable or pass WP:GNG. Not convinced the current citations are enough DonaldD23 talk to me 23:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Chile. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep May not have been a particularly relevant show but the sources seem to regard it as significant, especially as it seems to be the first or one of the first Chilean cartoon show to be on Cartoon Network. Referencing could be improved but a simple search shows there are sufficient sources. --Bedivere (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Yes, it seems like we're talking about a notable Chilean cartoon show, particularly because it may have been one of the first to air on Cartoon Network in Chile.--Correspondentman (talk) 08:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you can find reliable sources to support the notability of this subject, please share them here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talisman Desktop[edit]

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

Non-notable software product, fails WP:GNG. I was unable to locate any sourcing online and could only locate one print source where the name of the software is mentioned briefly in passing. ~Liancetalk 21:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Lawton[edit]

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

This young footballer does not yet meet GNG. He has played a couple of professional games and a good deal more in non-league. But there are no substantial sources on him, just routine announcements, passing mentions and stuff from his clubs. I can't find any significant coverage at present. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 22:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No rationale for deletion given. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Palm Bus[edit]

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

This page is no longer up to date at all and contains a lot of errors, a translation of the French page would be better, it is up to date and detailed. In addition, some false information has crept in. Pacatransports (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regional Best 2011[edit]

Regional Best 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Regional Best was published twice, in 2011 and 2012. In these anthologies, William Roetzheim, an entrepreneur who took up writing later in life, and who became as novelist, playwright and poet of no great renown, has chosen the best plays from among regional theater premieres. But since Roetzheim is not particularly well-known as a playwright or theater critic, his selections as to what constitutes the "best" plays is somewhat arbitrary and meaningless. The book was published by Level 4 Press which, unsurprisingly, is owned by Roetzheim. No significant notice of this book can be found in any search, although it does appear to be widely available for sale. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CSD G5 Liz Read! Talk! 18:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bahujan Samaj Party +[edit]

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

Prod removed with no adequate explanation. No sourcing that demonstrates the name of the electoral alliance is called + ("plus"); original research. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Can't find any source terming it as Bahujan Samaj Party +. It is a small alliance of only three parties that too one is not even a state party. 12 out of 14 sources given in the article are for ideology that too is copied from pages of member political party. Rest two sources given in the lead section, the one of Hindustan Times has nothing to do with this article. The other source of New Indian Express too just has a passing mention of BSP and SAD alliance. No mention of the subject. Shaan SenguptaTalk 07:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no connection with BSP+. In my state there is no party name BSP. George Simon Ohm (talk) 13:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @George Simon Ohm I never took your name. Can't understand what made you write this. Shaan SenguptaTalk 16:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been created by me and here it's written I want to promote my party, "The article is taken from the source and you can visually perceive the news that the coalition is called BSP+, during the elections these member parties were represented by BSP+. Secondly, maybe some users want to expunge it because they peregrinated here to promote their parties,..". My age is 19 or 20. How I can found a national party like BSP. Is there any logic. George Simon Ohm (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I HAVE NEVER EVEN VOTED IN A LEGISLATIVE OR GNERAL ELECTION IN MY LIFE. HOW I CAN BECOME A POLITICAL PARTY. George Simon Ohm (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
George Simon Ohm, so far, no one has made any accusations about you, they been critiquing the sources in the article and whether they can establish this subject's notability. This is the way all AFD discussions tend to go, please do not take this personally. I don't know where you get the quote that you cite (above) but it's not from this discussion. This AFD will run at least one week so if you want to spend the time, you can look for additional sources that can provide SIGCOV of this subject. Liz Read! Talk! 19:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is taken from the source and you can visually perceive the news that the coalition is called BSP+, during the elections these member parties were represented by BSP+. Secondly, maybe some users want to expunge it because they peregrinated here to promote their parties, Wikipedia is not for these things, I have optically discerned many users who peregrinated here to promote some political parties, they expunge or disrupt pages of other political parties, the page should not be effaced, whoever engendered it would have researched about it and then engendered it. The coalition is simply called BSP+ because BSP is the most sizably voluminous among them and the party has more vote share than others in the coalition, hence it is counted as BSP+. Third, there are only 2-3 parties in this coalition, there is no reason to abstract it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Simon Ohm (talk • contribs) Blocked sockpuppet. --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [reply]
George Simon Ohm as I said above too, that no sources cited in the article mention anything like BSP + also just one article has a passing mention of the alliance that too as BSP amd SAD alliance. It is pretty clear that the article and the subject in its current form donot pass Wikipedia:Notability and is just another example of Original Research because of missing Inline Citations and lack of Reliable sources cited. And what you have done in your comments is accused fellow editors of running propaganda and doing promotion. Can you please give examples of it or are you going to continue making baseless allegations on others. Shaan SenguptaTalk 16:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is minimal reference of the party’s name in the article, plus there are very few members representing it. HarukaAmaranth 春香 12:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rostom Aramovic Alagian[edit]

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

No reliable sources found to support the notability of this person, either as a musician, or in general. Actualy, I cound't find abything on him even in Russian, besides an LP he recorded. User Chrisboulg who created the page must be one of the persons mentioned at the bottom of the article ("Christos Voulgaridis"), who without a doubt have WP:COI with the subject, apparently close family ties ("His last greatest symphonic work Alexander The Great, Hymn To The Ancient Greece which is wedding present to his daughter Louisa and his son-in-law Christo Voulgaridi was written in 1996 at Thessaloniki which had many times visited."), as is also shown on el/WP; see here, where in one of summaries they state "Πηγή= Αρχείο γαμπρού του Χρήστου Βουλγαρίδη" = Source= Christos Voulgaridis son-in-law archive. WP is not a memorial site for deceased relatives. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Armenia and Russia. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability has not begun to be established. There are no reliable or independent sources whatsoever in the article. Just one online blog, with content credited to family member Christos Voulgaridis and noting that the two recordings listed by Discogs, made after the composer's death, were organised by Voulgaridis (Label 'Riani Melody' is only known for these two CDs, so likely self-published). Notability is not inherited from one's teachers or the eminence of writers whose texts are used. Davidships (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Polina Nioly Pushkareva[edit]

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

The person does not meet the criteria set out in WP:NACTOR guideline i.e., this individual lacks significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions and the person yet not made any unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Charlie (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. No valid keep argument made Spartaz Humbug! 05:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rakhee Gupta[edit]

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

Being an Indian Administrative Service officer is just a government job and doesn't automatically confer notability as per WP:SNG. Also, the individual clearly does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Charlie (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Charlie (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The article doesn't seem to mention it, but she's posted on YouTube, so there was some attention over that. Sources 4 and 6 (mostly 4, 6 looks like a press release). Rest are semi-helpful. Seems more notable for the Youtube post than the routine job she has. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what about notablity ? fails in wp:gng wp:bio .... IAS just a job not a criteria Worldiswide (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Englandia[edit]

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

Fails WP:NF, but that's not clear at first glance due to how the article is formatted. Most external links in this article (which I believe acts as references) point to Google searches, and the rest point to topics, not articles, on The Times of India, which has no bearing on notability per WP:TOI. Jurta talk/he/they 18:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:NFILM. Article is apparently by the film's director. None of the ToI tag clouds used as references mention the film, and I can't find anything about it online in RS. Wikishovel (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 23:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Othman Awad[edit]

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

Othman Awad

Association football player who does not satisfy general notability or sports notability. Contested draftification. Created in article space. Moved to draft space (correctly) by User:Onel5969. Declined as 'athlete' (correctly) by User:KylieTastic. Moved back to article space. Review of the references shows that two of them are database entries, one is a press release (in Arabic), and one appears to be social media. None of the references are independent significant coverage.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 us.soccerway.com A database entry about the player Yes No Yes No
2 kooora.com Appears to be social media or a database entry Probably not No Maybe No
3 sabq.org On machine translation, reads like a press release about his contract No Yes Maybe No
4 int.soccerway.com A database entry about a game Yes No Yes No
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect‎ to List of largest known stars. Spartaz Humbug! 05:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IRAS 04509-6922[edit]

IRAS 04509-6922 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. All mentions of it appear to be in obscure, large-scale surveys, therefore it does not meet WP:SIGCOV. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 18:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Void‎. Irredeemably tainted by all the meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry/spa voting Spartaz Humbug! 05:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Junlper[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines for a person. The goblin mode stuff especially smacks of WP:1E, with the other hoaxes and twitter shenanigans mostly being flashes in the pan that aren't indicative of WP:SUSTAINED, and thus don't exactly bolster the subject's notability for involvement. A possible merge to Goblin mode may be in order, but I don't think there's much in the page as it stands that would need to be put there. (Please, keep out of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments, as apparently this user's reputation on twitter is sometimes contentious) Paragon Deku (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. notable individual. being posted on depthsofwikipedia is not an excuse that holds up for filing an AfD. —darling (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would you assume that has anything to do with the AfD listing? Paragon Deku (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think depthsofwiki had anything to do with this, respectfuly Qwertyuiopfg (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Wisconsin. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning keep - the refs are still a bit messy, but there's two extensive direct interviews, two shorters articles actually about the subject and her ban from Twitter rated an article in itself. That's a sign of interest over time in RSes for multiple things - David Gerard (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • also I think notability will only go up from here. Junlper's back on Twitter and it's not like Junlper is gonna stop being Junlper - David Gerard (talk) 11:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the best you could argue for is a merge to Goblin mode. This person lacks sustained notability. They are best known for a Twitter profile that doesn't exist anymore. A couple of interviews/articles is too low of a bar for having a Wikipedia page. - Jingle38 (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's definitely not BLP1E as there are three or four things here: Goblin mode, the dick vein stuff, the "hidden headlines" stuff and the multiple chaotic Twitter suspensions/unsuspensions. Individually, each of these things is of low to borderline notability but, taken together, this shows repeated coverage over a period of time which I think is just about enough to count as sustained coverage. Back in December 2022 she got interviewed in depth by Buzzfeed News so this is not just a flash in the pan based on this last week's online drama. I am finding a large amount of trivial coverage and passing mentions too, particularly if you search "Juniper, twitter" and well as "Junlper". It's hard to find the more in-depth coverage among that but here is Techdirt covering her as major part of the "hidden headlines" story, with coverage of the resulting Twitter suspensions too. That's some more non-trivial coverage that could be added. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every niche internet microcelebrity warrants an article. That fact that she got banned on the one platform she's active on and not a single news reported on it speaks to her lack of notability. Funktasticdog (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
there were multiple articles about the suspension Qwertyuiopfg (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that there was no reporting, but it seems more to be focused on Musk and the platform than Juniper herself Paragon Deku (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to find one article on her suspension, but it focuses more on Elon Musk, TheMessenger
Still, let me amend my point and say: "That fact that she got banned on the one platform she's active on and it's received little significant coverage speaks to her lack of notability" Funktasticdog (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have links to those? AaronY (talk) 09:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for closer this is this accounts first edit in 6+ months, and its 9th overall edit. Googleguy007 (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is this relevant? You can see from my other edits that I haven't made any disruptive edits, and this account has been active for 6+ years. I only edit when I feel it is necessary. Funktasticdog (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of sustained notability as noted above Sub31k (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I don't think that there isn't sustained notability/BLP1E. She was the subject of pieces across 2022 and 2023, of multiple events. The coverage isn't enough for NBIO imo, but it's enough that I wouldn't consider it. SWinxy (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Complete lack of any kind of notability, at least when held up to standards set by other instances of someone not getting an article. Gunther Fehlinger and Chris-Chan lack articles while being infinitely more notable in just about every imaginable metric. The subject of this article is most notable for creating a meme. At best, a footnote on the article for Goblin mode. Collorizador (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Continuing notability seems very unlikely. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. They're a semi-popular Twitter troll who had a couple of viral tweets, now their account is gone there is no reason to believe they will maintain a degree of notability. Important to note that this person's presence on Wikipedia is being amplified by a single account, Personisinsterest, who created their account and instantly started to write articles about them and edit other articles to include information about them. Horarum (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In their defense, it was accepted at WP:AFC. At that point, adding links to a new article you just created to related articles is pretty standard practice. Creating your first account, writing a new article, submitting it to AFC, and adding links to related articles once its accepted is not a policy violation yet. Although I'll grant it does look like the beginnings of a WP:SPA. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not saying that it is a policy violation for a new account to create articles, it is just a bit suspicious and does appear to be a WP:SPA / WP:SOCK. Horarum (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know that making an account for a single purpose was against the rules, but I guess ill edit som other stuff then Personisinsterest (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Go for it. Welcome to Wikipedia.  — Scott • talk 10:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm leaning keep. The Buzzfeed News and Rolling Stone interview articles are pretty good indication of notability and are for two distinct events (ruling out WP:1E in my opinion). That plus coining a word of the year and getting a lot of interviews/coverage about misinformation and satire in the digital age has me thinking she just meets GNG.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Getting a few interviews doesn't make one notable enough in my view. Declan Newton (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a stupid reasoning, it is more evidence than you have ever left behind of existing. 65.94.71.152 (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with the former.
    Lastly, I am not arguing about my own notoriety(or lack thereof). Declan Newton (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:GNG is looking for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That would be articles like the Buzzfeed News and Rolling Stone articles. They're full length pieces on the person (significant coverage) in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there's obvious notability issues with very minimal coverage, and impact on offline events is low (compare to another shitposter, Dril who has significantly more followers, has published books, and still was subject to debates about notability). No reason to keep, sorry. GreenTetrahedron (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Without restating the points already made, I agree with the reasons stated above re: interviews, there being multiple events, and clearly meeting GNG. Additionally, there are plenty of examples in Category:Twitter accounts that are comparable to Junlper in terms of notability. Trevor Rainbolt, Da share z0ne, PissPigGrandad, and WeRateDogs come to mind. Slinkyo (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of those users are known for their offline and off Twitter activities. PissPigGrandad in particular has media attention and notability for fighting in Syria and working to unionize Anchor Brewing. I don’t think they’re really comparable. Paragon Deku (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lack of sustained notability as mentioned and without the Twitter account the user will fade into obscurity even worse. AaronY (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per David Gerard. Sure, it's an edge case and I wouldn't begrudge a Delete close, but the references at the minute just pass GNG in my view, and a pass is a pass. Given the sources are not just for "one event", BLP1E isn't a valid deletion rationale. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 20:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As others have said, lack of sustained notability. They're not exactly notable enough outside of the twitter platform, and every niche microcelebrity doesn't warrant an entire Wikipedia article. As others said, I believe a footnote in the Goblin mode article at the most is warranted. LunarxShadows (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)— LunarxShadows (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Comment this is this accounts first ever edit Googleguy007 (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if fucking LindyMan gets an Article, I see no reason as to why Junlper shouldn't. Death Editor 2 (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don’t think he should really have one either. Might want to open an AfD on that one if you think it’s an issue. Paragon Deku (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is at the very least a published author and has made impact outside of his little circle on twitter/x, topic of discussion is clearly a vanity article. Pinchofhope (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think being a published author makes one automatically notable for a wikipedia article. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point is the person was making a comparison that fails. Declan Newton (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At least he publishes... well something offline. Declan Newton (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
wp:otherstuffexists Personisinsterest (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, no offline impact. Pinchofhope (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Offline impact is not the criterion for keeping/deleting. 2600:6C52:7A00:AC0:CDBC:D9AA:B3CA:9F8C (talk) 05:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, some people seem to believe that due to her notability being thanks to internet culture it makes her somehow inherently less notable. If juniper was some D-list celebrity with a small tv-show who occasionally got reported on for starting huge trends or jokes, then very publicly (with reporting on it) got said show cancelled for criticizing the network, we wouldnt even be having this conversation. Googleguy007 (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
definitely lol 2A02:C7C:AD28:7C00:984A:7153:55BF:778C (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Someone earlier said that the article was accepted on WP:AFC, so I doubt it.
RM-Steele (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for closer this is not an argument, and this is the IPs second edit. Googleguy007 (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also important to note the clearly intentional misgendering, which points at this simply being a troll/person who dislikes the subject. Googleguy007 (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they are "trolls". Declan Newton (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
could you please point out how intentionally misgendering a subject isn’t trolling? Googleguy007 (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I reject that.
Most online users do not get online articles. It's acceptable to guess someone would write an article about themselves. Declan Newton (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
contrary to this, we have quite a few articles on online users (see Category:Twitter accounts, Category:Internet trolls, and probably more categories I've yet to link here). —darling (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, once they have passed a benchmark of notoriety.
Junlper has not. Not even close. Declan Newton (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the article was accepted through AfC and contains enough sources that mention Junlper. I'm quite fairly sure the "benchmark of notoriety" has clearly been passed. —darling (talk) 22:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was mistake that it got through.
No it has not been passed. None of the articles written about Junlper, as seen in references, are about anything notable in of themselves. Just some viral twitter jokes. Declan Newton (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please, enlighten me as to how “the [girl] probably wrote it [herself]”, with no additional backing or context, is an actual argument, especially given the blatant cruelty in intentionally misgendering. Googleguy007 (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weakly leaning towards keep as well. There's probablby a billion and one articles with more notability that aren't present, and a billion and one articles that have no notability as well, so I personally don't think comparing articles will get us far.
For 1E, it's really about whether you think the vein hoax or her suspension is notable enough. I can't exactly be objective on this, but I remember the vein hoax well enough that I'd give it the pass.
Ultimately, I wouldn't feel it a loss if this article goes, but if there's no outstanding point from either camp, I think it would be better to keep an non-notable article than delete a notable one.
RM-Steele (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment noticing that several new accounts along with a couple of several year old almost-completely inactive accounts have randomly decided to appear at this AfD. I assume it's because of the depths tweet but I feel like a tiny bit of meatpuppetry may be occuring here. —darling (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I tried to set up this AfD explicitly condoning “I don’t like it” arguments to try to deter this sort of behavior given recent attention. Hopefully it remains manageable. Paragon Deku (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No real notoriety. Only a handful of viral tweets. As for others pointing out other internet celebs got pages, those people have built their brand across multiple platforms and simply put, had more fame than Junlper.
Lastly, there are far more "Twitter users" with more fame and followers that have more followers and routinely get more likes, such as "kiracantmizz", and they don't have wikipedia articles. Declan Newton (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
see WP:OTHERSTUFF. —darling (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still in isolation, this person is not notable enough. Declan Newton (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is an essay, right? Not a guideline? No offense but it's always annoying when people cite essays in debates that should be about guidelines. AaronY (talk) 10:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note None of these points actually address notability (see the articles and interviews about the user), but rather how famous they are online. Googleguy007 (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A couple interviews do not warrant classifying Junlper as notable enough for a page.
Lastly, online fame as an internet celebrity is your notoriety. Declan Newton (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 68.207.220.31 (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for closer This ips only previous edits were vandalizing a sockpuppeteers LTA page to proclaim their innocence. Googleguy007 (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not relevant enough of a personality to have a whole Wikipedia article, "JunIper" is at max a NiMCel with no impact out of Twitter. Henrique Schuh (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify? Personisinsterest (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for closer this is this accounts second ever edit. Googleguy007 (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this page should be protected. While I welcome discussion about the article, there are too many IPs and accounts created now just to oppose this. They likely are from Twitter and don't like Juniper. I'd also like to say that many Delete comments, while there are some that provide actual arguments, are overwhelmingly just saying to delete with either a very short "no notability" or no context whatsoever. Personisinsterest (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I corroborate with the previously discussed deletion notoriety points, furthermore as a frequent user of twitter, I must say there are many other accounts that are very similar to this person, and a potential merge into a future page of "Twitter Shitposters" is the right move if information about this person must be preserved. When you strip away the 2 interviews there Isn't anything noteworthy here. There's Mr. Beast, a noteworthy figure, just responding to this person because they were reciprocating misinformation. This is frankly unremarkable and Mr. Beast would have responded to this if anyone said what this person said (provided it gained enough traction for him to see it). The fact that this brief >4 sentence interaction takes up a significant portion of the article Is a big red flag that this doesn't meet noteworthy requirements. I think the fact that one of the main accomplishments of this person being "Popularized Goblin Mode", (a minor internet meme) fails to live up to notability standards for two key reasons; Popularization is a frankly immeasurable effect that is more of a collective effort than a single person's actions, & popularization is inherently an unnoteworthy phenomenon to incur historically. Important to note individual also did not create the snickers "Dick Vein" meme. This is a recurring viral joke that's been around since 2009 that was not even originally popularized by them. It could be debated they ultimately played no significant role in the resurgence of the meme, as it would happen anyway, as recurring memes do. Importantly with both of these, the concept of an internet meme is inherently rooted in how the larger internet acts and communicates. Giving someone "Credit for popularization" of this kind of thing is almost dishonest in this regard. It was the people who chose, not this person. Suspension from twitter is also extremely common, and the cause for which was entirely warranted under twitter's rules & guidelines. This again fails to meet a status of notability. After that, all that's left is their personal life, which is a measly 3 short sentences. This also does not meet notability requirements. Reminder to all to avoid discussion about the existence of other similar articles.
Onearenio (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC) — Onearenio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I respect that you actually wrote something here. I have to say though, goblin mode was made word of the year and other notable things have happened surrounding that. And the Snickers dick vein joke was credited more to her because of the fabricated article of Tucker Carlson saying it had been removed and the ensuing right wing moral panic. her repopularizing the term was partly notable, but its the context around it that made it notable. the notability of her interactions with mrbeast are debatable, but they have been picked up in articles from reliable sources. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for closer skimming the passage it seems like decent reasoning (or, at least, reasoning which has been properly enunciated), but I have to note that this is this accounts only edit. Googleguy007 (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Literally nothing noteworthy about this person Etsaloto (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an argument. You would have to explain why the things in the article aren't noteworthy. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just wanted to take some time to let you know that this is not a vote and just saying something should be deleted due to notability means nothing, with that in mind, you may want to elaborate on your reasoning. Googleguy007 (talk) 03:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Admittedly, Roxy is only aware of this article's existence because of Twitter. Based on the interview sources, she seems to meet WP:GNG. In the event of a Delete result, Snickers § Vein removal hoax and Goblin mode should link to each other noting their shared creator. As others have already pointed out, deletion arguments based on (1) the existence of more famous online celebrities, (2) "offline impact", and (3) her account's being suspended, don't seem to be policy-based. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 00:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've already voiced my opinion but it seems like there is a strong consensus that this page shouldn't exist. Just because a person has online fans doesn't mean they deserve a Wikipedia page. I haven't seen much defense of this article outside of the subject's fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jingle38 (talk • contribs) strike duplicate vote
  • Delete Keep It's better to simply relegate mentions of her to the Goblin Mode article and the Snickers article respectively. Apart from those things, she isn't notable for much else, and she doesn't have much of a presence within credible media outlets outside of the aforementioned memes. At the end of the day, most people will likely only remember her for those two events, no point in having an article with very little to go off in terms of detailing her personal life. After giving it some more thought, I retract my previous statement. After looking through Category: Twitter accounts, I now understand that "microcelebrities" with relatively little coverage don't necessarily warrant deletion. My bad. Subro77 (talk) 03:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: This AfD is getting a lot of participation and I'm uncomfortable with the number of people arguing to delete because they feel like the subject isn't notable/doesn't deserve an article. WP:BLP2E is not a policy and the article subject here as gotten significant media attention for multiple things, to the extent that just covering her at the article on "goblin mode", or at the article on Snickers, or at the article regarding Twitter suspensions, would be a very sub-optimal way of doing things. There's clearly a decent amount of relevant information that can be reliably-sourced about her, and that's ultimately much of what notability guidelines are there to determine: whether we can write a decent, useful page on someone. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that people are getting off topic, but beyond a couple memes, this article provides practically nothing. It tells me that she's a food inspector and got a few listicles and puff pieces done about her when the memes were hot off the fryer. None of this is particularly informative and wouldn't be more at home in other pages.
    Additionally, although not grounds for deletion in and of itself, the extremely rabid response from fans and detractors indicates this article will probably function has a hotspot for vandalism and a lightning rod for disruption and harassment of the individual in question. We have to weigh whether or not that's worth letting the article past the gate when, as it stands, it's not really providing much information that couldn't be explained elsewhere. Paragon Deku (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't call any of the articles here "puff pieces" as they're not overly promotional. Agree that the level of media coverage as exists in the article is borderline, but when someone has been significantly involved in multiple events that merit mention, creating one article on them is preferable to having that content scattered around the site.
    I don't see the response being an argument in favor of deletion either; we do not delete articles because they attract controversy, and any sort of precedent towards doing that would be a very bad one to set. I doubt the existence of this article would lead to much harassment of the subject, either, though obviously if she requested deletion that would change the calculus here. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We absolutely do omit articles for certain internet celebrities when including them would cause more harm than good. A rather extreme example, but this is especially why there will probably never be an article for Christine Chandler. I agree this is not nearly as extreme of a case. We will just have to wait and see, but I think the AfD may need to be retracted and redone at a later date if the disruption continues. Paragon Deku (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We have done this for exactly one internet celebrity, as you've mentioned, and that should not be cited as precedent in any case that is not extremely similar (and this one certainly is not). Elli (talk | contribs) 02:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just want to clarify She is getting harassed and has requested deletion [3] Paragon Deku (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We have a range of tools for dealing with articles which are vandal magnets. Semi-protection is the main one and, of course, persistent vandals get blocked. We have many even more tempting lightning rods for idiocy than this one. I'm sure that this will attract some disruptive activity but I doubt it will be anything we can't cope with. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely irrelevant user outside of weird irrelevant Twitter spaces. No real impact on the world, some pseudonymous Twitter leftist normieposter has no reason to have a Wikipedia page.Smefs (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment this seems like more of a personal attack on the woman who runs the account, not proper AFD reasoning, depending on how strongly you feel about this you may want to expand upon your reasoning in a reply (I would also reccomend reading some policies, guidelines, and essays on notability, as that seems to be your main issue with the article). Googleguy007 (talk) 03:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I didn't mean to come across that way. I was just attempting to communicate that I do not see the relevance of "Juniper" or other shitposters who inhabit a similar space, as I do not think they've have a meaningful impact or any non-temporary notability WP:SUSTAINED Smefs (talk) 05:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the clarification, while I disagree on notability (I believe their media coverage has greatly outpaced that of many shitposters of a similar vain) I admire that you elaborated on your argument and find your reasoning sound. Googleguy007 (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to pass GNG to me, even if not by a large margin. Goblin mode and the Snickers Dick Vein hoax are both things that I was aware of and heard about outside of twitter or her account.
Explodingcreepsr (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Personally this feels like this shouldn't be its own article, but it definitely meets notability guidelines. Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 03:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete This person is not notable and someone responsible for a few memes and posting is a prime example of “what Wikipedia is not”Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also take a *Merge to Goblin Mode Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 03:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The person has received coverage from multiple mainstream RS, why should the fact that the coverage was the result of twitter invalidate that? Googleguy007 (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article, and the sourced articles, don't offer any additional substantive information about the person. The only addition regarding Junlper is that she is a food inspector and that they were banned from Twitter. Many of the sourced articles are only about the events that happened and do not mention her or mention her only in passing. Spinwin2 (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete It feels like a double standard. Wikipedia doesn't have personal articles on people who have made far more of an impact on online culture. Off the top of my head, Ben Schulz, Gary Brolsma, and Jason Steele all are just mentioned in the articles of the things they created. If this stays, there's a legitimate argument for making a Chris Chan article, as they've arguably had even more mainstream news attention and memes surrounding them.76.77.227.183 (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST TheRealOj32 (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note this is this IPs 13th ever edit. Googleguy007 (talk) 10:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should discuss on the quality of the argument and not the somewhat-lasting multi-edit history of an account. Sirguh (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ATTP. You will find most of my edit history is within the realms of AfDs. TheRealOj32 (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a small point of clarification: I believe Googleguy007 was speaking to 76.77.227.183's history, not yours! Reil (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah good catch, my mistake on that part :) TheRealOj32 (talk) 07:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It seems evident that this page is being targetted by people who don't like the subject. For fairness, I suggest no action is taken until it dies down. 203.211.79.215 (talk) 04:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not sure what to !vote yet, but personally, I would think twice before !voting to delete on notability grounds an article that has over 20 sources. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 04:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    About 2/3rds of those sources either don't mention Junlper or only mention her in passing. They are articles about either the dick vein viral post, or goblin mode fake headline. Two or three focus on Junlper but they are in a Q/A format and still predominately ask her about the viral posts that already have their own article and not her as a person. Spinwin2 (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close discussion and reopen at a later date. - While I am personally in favor of deletion. I feel there have been far too many people here who seem to be working on their own personal dislike or like of the subject in question then any serious editorial process at hand. The "Depth of Wikipedia" post almost surely does not help matters here. The behavior of some users here has been so blatantly partisan about the subject of the article that it has effectively made any reliable discussion impossible as of now. Planetberaure (talk) 04:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Honestly, she just doesn't meet notability guidelines; she is a random Twitter user with ~250k followers; if every one of those had a page, we would an incredible amount of pages for Twitter users.

Sontails1234 (talk 5:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

    • Comment - To be fair, the English Wikipedia already has 6,727,746 articles as of October 12th, 2023 and even on the high end of my estimates that would roughly total out to like 5000 new articles for twitter users with that amount of followers (not counting people already famous with a large amount of Twitter followers.) Rorr404 🗣️ ✍️ 🖼️ 🌐 17:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This argument seems to fall flat, her page is due to her coverage in the media, not the simple semi-popularity of her twitter account. Googleguy007 (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while notability isn't an issue here, it's the sustained part that's the problem (only received coverage a few times in 2022 and 2023). MiasmaEternal☎ 07:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTTEMPORARY Personisinsterest (talk) 10:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SUSTAINED - Tabloid-esque coverage of viral tweets a few times over a 24 month period does not constitute notability Horarum (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Time range (of which two years is actually relatively long) doesnt factor into SUSTAINED, and Juniper has been covered for a variety (three which I am aware of) things. Googleguy007 (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are a lot of people who go viral and get one or two press interviews (especially through BuzzFeed) but don't meet notability guidelines for sustained coverage. I support a merge for Goblin mode though. HoldOnMagnolia (talk) 07:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - Lack of notoriety, accurately exemplified by the example above. Feels promotional, and also unfair considering how plenty of articles about arguably historically relevant people or other subjects are far less detailed. If anything, a mention in the Goblin mode article is enough. Anuchikibrikiivdamke (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per David Gerard - feels like a lot of the delete arguments boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, or both. WindTempos (talk • contribs) 11:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Arguments for delete say subject is not notable, despite strictly meeting WP:GNG, or that the notability will not continue, despite WP:NOTTEMPORARY. The subject has met established thresholds for notability, despite the unsupported statements by new or otherwise-dormant accounts. Arguments that subject is involved in "only a few events" is a tacit admittance that the subject clears WP:1E. Reil (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article itself was created by a new or dormant account, so that issue is a two-edged sword. Futhermore, you're assuming the "events" this person is involved in are both 1) actually notable and 2) they had a major role in said events, both of which are dubious. Getting replied to by Mr. Beast on Twitter isn't a major event. This person has had absolutely zero offline impact. Jingle38 (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I would advise against dismissing legitimate observations of the AFD with "this other similar guy made the article" (what is being discussed is the actual article and its notability) 2. Im not sure why you refer to her getting replied to by Mr. Beast as your example when that is part one of the smaller, less notable events she has been involved in. 3. Im unsure where you draw the idea that something (which has been covered by RS) is only notable if it had offline impact, we would need to delete a lot of articles if that were true. Googleguy007 (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was created by a new or dormant account through WP:AFC, which has more rigor than a flat statement made in stark contrast to actual policy and sources provided.
    The repeated assertion of "zero offline impact" is meaningless. The standards of notability aren't tied to locality, be it online, in a press room, or in the streets, or in my head. The standards brought up in this AFD are in short: More than one event covered, by more than one independent, reliable source. Whether you or I think an event warranted coverage doesn't factor into the notability calculus at play, so long as that coverage exists, and each event has been covered by one or more perennial sources that are clearly independent of the subject.
    The "major role" in events is an interesting point to bring up, but only seems to apply to one of the three events currently in the article. This leaves two events which were driven primarily by the subject--notably more than one. Reil (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not have much opinion about the notability of Juniper (and WP:GNG has been argued here to the point where I could not provide any extra value of it if I tried), but steer clear of this argument:
    > The article itself was created by a new or dormant account,
    WP:INVOLVE -- What matters is the value of the article itself. TheRealOj32 (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Daniel Rigal, Tulsa Politics fan, and Reil, who expressed my thoughts perfectly and elaborated on a few points I hadnt considered. Googleguy007 (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
*Weak delete per WP:SUSTAINED as others have said - only passing mentions. Would support a merge to Goblin mode and/or Snickers dick vein. Tableguy28 (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse the poor formatting. Tableguy28 (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The circumstances of this article's creation were very fishy and sudden, the account behind the creation appeared out of the blue, making it believable that she created her own article, (Big no-no) and I would bring up personalities like Miles Routledge, Gunther Fehlinger, and Chris Chan not having articles but that would just straight up lean into WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, which I would like to avoid for the sake of civil discussion in this deletion nomination. Rorr404 🗣️ ✍️ 🖼️ 🌐 17:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • - As an additional comment, this article seems to be written weirdly with heavy leaning into informal and overly-(self?)-appraising wording, such as "However, she later realized that it was better to make fun of her political enemies." and the fact that in the references list, there is a separate part for primary sources. Rorr404 🗣️ ✍️ 🖼️ 🌐 17:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Despite my keep !vote, I agree that the wording (and, to some extent, overall article structure) is in need of some serious work. Googleguy007 (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • In fact, the subject is daunted by the ongoing personal attacks on her in this AFD, and on Twitter itself in the wake of it, and would prefer it was deleted [4] - David Gerard (talk) 07:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wanted to say that she may writing her own article too. I mean we assume good faith but it seems that way to me too. AaronY (talk) 10:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It really isnt AGF to baselessly imply or accuse another user of being an articles subject, that combined with the fact that juniper has specifically said she wants the page deleted (imo) puts this matter to rest. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, per David Gerard and other's above. This is a very borderline case, but on balance there seems to be just enough source to scrape past GNG in my view. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, This person has done somewhat notable things, however barely enough to get a wiki article. Wiki articles are mostly around things that have made an impact, and the things Junlper has done aren't that huge of an impact. Sure, maybe getting noticed by Snickers is a big impact to someone, but I don't think it justifies an article. -Chicken4War (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nominator. Cjhard (talk) 02:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak redirect per David Gerard. I would have voted keep per TulsaPoliticsFan if she didn't specifically ask for this not to exist since she's getting harassed. If there's an excuse, opt for safety. Replace with the redirect to Goblin mode. --~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-channyan 15:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm going to say this now. Do not harass Juniper for this. I am not Juniper. Do not base your decisions on what she said. She's also said that if the article survives it would be funny and cute.[5] Don't base your decisions on this. Personisinsterest (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're sort of burying the lede here, which is that she also said it's causing her harassment and she's in favor of its deletion. The fact that you've clung to that off handed comment and insist we not take it into consideration can only lead me to believe you're a bit of an unhealthily attached fan. Paragon Deku (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Subject seems at most ambivalent and has spoken to favorability of the either outcome, rather than requesting a specific outcome (despite your use of the word "request" elsewhere in the page).
Furthermore, Wikipedia does not appear to have any policy resembling a Right to be forgotten for notable subjects. The closest I could find was WP:courtesy vanishing, which applies specifically to user pages. It seems a subject's own comments affects neither notability specifically, or the policy on their article's existence more generally. This makes sense to me, given that otherwise prominent, but negatively covered figures would quite frequently quash articles. I'd like to see policy regarding requests for deletion (in addition to evidence of a direct request), or otherwise directly addressed concerns about notability. Reil (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“I am for the mods deleting it!” seems as clear of a request for deletion as one could take for an aloof Twitter poster. I’m not necessarily saying that’s the smoking gun on deletion, but it seems clear cut what they really want. Paragon Deku (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are twisting this. She is for the mods deleting it, but wouldn't mind if it stayed. And, you are supposed to argue about the notability of the subject, not the subjects opinion on having an article. No Wikipedia policy says that you have to listen to them. This is not the hill to die on. I think you should spend your efforts arguing notability. Personisinsterest (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve already made my argument for notability. I simply pointed out you were burying the lede. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the subject wanting an article deleted is a reason to delete. Of course we should care about harassment, but at the same time these things tend to die down after a few days or a week or two. I suspect what's fueling the harassment is probably more the on-going contentious AFD more so than the existence of the article. Viral AFD's happen every once in a while (I'm remembering Yaroslav Hunka a few weeks ago) and they generate a lot of attention, but it tends to die down after a few weeks. I guess TLDR; I don't think harassment is going to stop while the AFD is open and I don't think a keep result will result in more harassment long-term than a delete result. I could be wrong though. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE does exist, but it has three clear requirements: 1. the subject is relatively unknown and non-public, 2. the subject has clearly requested deletion, and 3. there is no rough consensus in the AFD. I don't think 1 or 2 apply here, and 3 will be determined at the conclusion of the discussion. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This could potentially be unprecedented when it comes to defining what makes a subject "non-public." Junlper is certainly relatively known in online spaces (enough to brush shoulders with non-anonymous public figures), but her account is relatively pseudonymous, and she has expressed a lack of desire to have her personal details be a point of common knowledge. She also was recently doxxed. Could it be argued that a relatively popular internet figure that takes pains to remain pseudonymous and avoid attention around their personal life is, in a way, non-public? Paragon Deku (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She did not ask for this article to be deleted; she said she would be fine if it was (but also that she would be fine if it wasn't). Given this, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE does not apply here as she hasn't clearly requested deletion. Giving multiple media interviews regarding a subject generally means you are not a non-public figure (Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual, while not part of BLPREQUESTDELETE, is decent guidance regarding this). Obviously we should not dox her here, and we don't. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I must also concede I don't know if June is a pseudonym or not, but I do take umbrage with this implication that she didn't ask for it to be deleted; this is a person whose comedic style heavily involves sarcasm. The only statement she gave that could even imply ambiguity was "if it survives it'll be so funny and cute but if it gets deleted i'll stop getting harassed so that would be cool too actually." This was followed by the explicit statement of "i am for the mods deleting it!" which, when taken in tandem with the prior mentioned affinity for sarcasm, seems clear to me that she does want it deleted and was simply waxing poetic on the novelty of having a wikipedia page. Paragon Deku (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either statement could be sarcastic, though. She has not been clear about her desires, and if she wants the article deleted, she should clearly communicate that. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it was the other way around. she said she was in favor of the mods deleting it, but it would be funny and cute if it stayed. she also replied to the depths of wikipedia tweet with "it can be a silly life, at times...". There is no clear way of figuring out what she wants here and we shouldn't take it into account. She is also not a low-profile individual. Do relatively unknown people get Buzzfeed News interviews and articles about their suspension from twitter? Personisinsterest (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Privately, Juniper has said that she would like if the article stays but wouldn't mind it getting deleted and that harassment has died down. Regardless, you shouldn't take it into account and the article should be judged exclusively on notability. I have proof of my claims and will provide it if asked. Personisinsterest (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm this. I Will be striking my comments on the matter. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to thank you for being very understanding and calm during this Personisinsterest (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She's in favor of either outcome! That's what im saying. She does not care either way! Keep and Delete should not judge the notability of this article based on what she says. Judge the article on its merits. Personisinsterest (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For closing admin I'm sure you'll notice this, but at least eight of the "Delete" votes above are from editors with less than 100 edits who have never commented on an AfD before, and are policy-free (plus two IP "votes" as well). I'm pretty sure that all of these can be discarded, because it's fairly clear what is going on there. Black Kite (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is fair to discard the contributions of editors with less than 100 edits, then why not discard the whole page which was created by a new account whose (less than 100) edit history is almost exclusively about junlper? Horarum (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because we want to encourage people to start editing and making articles so we try to not to punish new accounts who draft an article, submit it for creation, and then have it approved by another editor (See above, the article went through WP:AFC). That behavior is good for wikipedia. Creating an account just to vote in one AFD is probably not good for Wikipedia and those editors may not be here to build an encyclopedia (WP:NOTHERE). Hope this helps explain why AFD's are skeptical of IP votes and editors with few edits. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We don’t want to bite newcomers who are actually trying to contribute and produce content. The same doesn’t go for blatant off-site astroturfing. Paragon Deku (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I went through the process to get an article through according to the rules and am going to start editing other topics. These are likely just haters from Twitter that don't have any argument and just dislike her anyway. Personisinsterest (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it's a clear sign of an off-Wikipedia campaign to disrupt the AfD. This happens a lot. Feel free to put "Juniper Wikipedia" into the X search engine and all will be clear. Black Kite (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because its a pretty good indicator that someone didnt happen to come across the AFD through regular wiki-editor behavior, and instead was canvassed in. Googleguy007 (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closer I have over 34k edits and voted to delete. Hope the gatekeepers allow my vote to matter. AaronY (talk) 03:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody's 'vote' matters, per the box at the top of the page, merely the consensus on policy applied to this article. I'm sure there's no gates to be kept from. Reil (talk) 05:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you need to read the full discussion here, many are trying to dismiss cogent complaints solely due to post count.
    Also, thanks for the lecture and tutorial. I've done about one million AFDs but it's always good to be reminded of the basics I learned well over 10 years ago. AaronY (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would contend that in a discussion with major canvassing issues, an account having 0 edits before casting their !vote is actually relevant. Googleguy007 (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done about one million AFDs but it's always good to be reminded of the basics I learned well over 10 years ago. Besides the obvious fallacy of "I've been on this site for longer than you have, therefore my argument about whether this article should be kept must hold more weight than yours", the claim that you have done a lot of AFDs therefore you are experienced isn't even true. The last AfD !vote you have casted was in January 2020, which is 3.5 years ago. toolforge says you have only !voted ten times throughout your editing history here, so I fail to see how your tenure in afds is even relevant in this discussion here. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironically, my reply was not based on judging your aptitude based on your participation numbers, but on the content of your reply: namely your referring to things as if they are straight polls with votes to be counted or thrown out. Reil (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a discussion, not a vote. What matters is whether your argument is policy-based, or not. In your delete !vote, you said that she does not have "sustained notability". I don't think that is even a thing. WP:SUSTAINED only says that having sustained coverage would be an indicator of notability, not the other way around. Not having sustained coverage cannot be used to say that she is not notable. Perhaps you would like to perform a source analysis, to suggest why the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG nor WP:BASIC? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 07:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I knew all this like 9 years ago, but thanks. AaronY (talk) 10:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think my comment was fairly clear as to which Delete !votes had obviously originated from off-wiki canvassing, which was clearly not all of them, and certainly not yours. Black Kite (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for answering in a non-patronizing tone. Some that are just "keep" or "delete" I agree don't add much regardless of where they come from but I'm sure the admin closing these who has done a ton of these knows that so it seemed VERY unnecessary to me. Also, a few made arguments agreed with and it doesn't matter how many posts they have in that case. AaronY (talk) 10:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - subject has received significant coverage from Vox, Rolling Stone, and BuzzFeed News, which are all reliable according to WP:RSP. Meets WP:BASIC. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 02:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong leaning delete:
  • Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and WP:BIODEL (both policies) due to the subject's unequivocal request to delete (note to closer: that request was made after the majority of above comments were posted) and her reports of harassment due to us, which we should take seriously. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE says discussions where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete, at the closer's discretion.
  • Per the fact that her notability is borderline (as acknowledged by many Keep voters). Of the 3 links posted above by Deadbeef, one is Rolling Stone which is deemed generally unreliable for the subject area (the incident involves so-called wokeness, cancel culture, and right-wing media), and two are interviews; while interviews do provide an indication of significance, we can't use them extensively to source article contents because the subject's responses are primary (per footnote (d) of WP:OR and common sense) and not subject to the publication's editorial oversight. Above, a Techdirt report is described as containing non-trivial coverage; I disagree, it's a passing mention. I don't have an hour to spend making a nice source analysis table, but I checked every source we use: Advocate is a passing mention, Gizmodo doesn't mention her, The Messenger is completely unreliable (she didn't coin "goblin mode"), WaPo REF18 doesn't mention her, SpielTime is unreliable, LATimes is a quintessential passing mention (just quotes a tweet), same for Kotuak; PolitiFact, which dedicates the entire article to "snickers vein", doesn't mention her once; same for WaPo REF9, links to her tweet but doesn't mention her, same for NYT REF8, same for TheFocus (unreliable?), same for CNN; Dictionary.com never mentions her; Insider provides SIGCOV of goblin mode but not of her, as does RollingStone (setting aside the fact that it's an interview and GUNREL). Sourcing is weaker than I thought when I first read the article.
  • As a more secondary argument, I do think WP:SUSTAINED applies here; I don't think biographies should be based on bursts of coverage.
DFlhb (talk) 08:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rolling Stone's coverage of her is more about culture than about politics and society, but even if you consider it as unreliable, it doesn't change much. Could you elaborate a bit on how the Insider source doesn't provide significant coverage of her? The headline is literally "The person behind .. goblin mode" and talks about her involvement in the event.
The Messenger is completely unreliable (she didn't coin "goblin mode") What? Are we just going to throw away an entire source just because they say she coined the phrase? Correct me if I am wrong, but BuzzFeed News also says she created the term. So is there some insight that I am missing?
As a more secondary argument, I do think WP:SUSTAINED applies here; I don't think biographies should be based on bursts of coverage. which part of SUSTAINED applies? The part on WP:BLP1E? How would WP:BLP1E apply here? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Insider: I meant that it provides significant coverage of her viral tweet (including her thinking behind it), but not SIGCOV of her or her account. I don't want to sound nitpicky but that's why I think that source fits better at Goblin mode than here.
Re: Messenger: it's documented (in sources we cite) that she popularized the phrase, but didn't coin it (see WaPo REF9). And to clarify I'm treating that specific article as dubious, not the outlet in general.
Re: SUSTAINED: 1E is the second paragraph of SUSTAINED, I'm referring to the first para, Brief bursts (note the plural). BLPs that are collages of tweets from WP:RSBREAKING news coverage are unlikely to give us a full or balanced picture of a subject, even a succinct one.
I also want to emphasise that my three bullet points were listed in reverse order of importance. Wikipedia often doesn't act on borderline-notable BLPs' requests for deletion, despite policy, but it's something I care a lot about. DFlhb (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She popularized the phrase and most people didn't know about it before this. It would be a reasonable mistake to say she coined it. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, so you were talking about Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. I wonder how you interpreted that sentence, since to me, that just means "additional conditions apply". Just saying that she has brief bursts of news coverage doesn't automatically make her not notable. So, would you like to make an unequivocal statement that you believe this subject does not meet WP:GNG? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was not unequivocal. She also said she like if it stayed but wouldn't mind. The Techdirt report is not a passing mention.
Passing mention is not when Techdirt says "I guess maybe it is aesthetically pleasing after all…
Of course, Mr. “Free Speech Absolutist” who has baselessly called people who annoy him pedophiles on multiple occasions, couldn’t allow anyone to make a joke over his new “aesthetically pleasing” news link displays by referring to him as a pedophile, so when a nonsense peddler — whose sole claim to fame is baselessly implying tons of people are pedophiles — highlighted the Juniper tweet above, Elon responded… and suspended the account. I guess comedy is no longer legal on the new, more aesthetically pleasing exTwitter? Of course, in true Streisand Effect fashion, now more people are learning about all of this and reporters are asking questions. So, just to sum up, we have a very silly change that Elon made that makes news links basically impossible to parse on exTwitter, which opened up a fun form of trolling, which many people used to make fun of Elon Musk himself. One of those troll tweets jokingly called Elon Musk a pedophile, which is one of Elon’s own favorite go to moves when challenged. Another account, whose entire claim to fame is baselessly suggesting random people are pedophiles, highlighted this to Musk, and Musk (who pretends to be a “free speech absolutist” to the absolute most gullible people in the world who believe him), then suspended that account for breaking “X’s” rules (by which Musk means “offended Elon Musk personally.”) That user’s backup account was also suspended, but this post is long enough that we’re just going to leave it there.
Anyhoo, please don’t post this article to exTwitter, because everyone will just think it’s an image anyway and not click on it. Updated: Basically just as this post went live, Elon unsuspended the Juniper account, so really, we’re back to content moderation by whims. Updated again: And… an hour later, the account was suspended again. Whims, whims, whims." Personisinsterest (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article is 3490 characters. The section about Juniper is 1838 characters. That is 52.664756447% of the article. More than half. More than half of an article is not a passing mention. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't WP:BLUDGEON, especially as the article creator; you've posted numerous responses here.
The tweet you are quoting actually says: if it survives it'll be so funny and cute but if it gets deleted i'll stop getting harassed so that would be cool too actually. That's ironyposting; "i'll stop getting harassed so that would be cool too actually" is an obvious understatement.
Only a small portion of your quote provides usable content about Junlper (by my count, 78 words, which is not SIGCOV). I forgot to note, above, that Techdirt is a group blog, which doesn't confer notability. See prior discussions about Techdirt at RSN, here and here. DFlhb (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Calling something that is clearly ambiguous "unequivocal" is just wrong. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the tweet I linked, not the tweet I hadn't seen. DFlhb (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen evidence (not posted here) that Junlper's walked back the request more clearly since then. That solves the biggest issue for me, so I've struck that and toned down my vote to leaning delete. I still think the sourcing is a bit borderline, but, no major issue with it being kept. DFlhb (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep coverage in several major publications means they clearly meet wp:GNG—blindlynx 15:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - coverage in major media Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 03:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, and regardless of outcome as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC restore Juniper (disambiguation) to the Juniper page Gnangarra 05:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Juniper is a different article to this one (about the plants) and has never been a disambig page (since it's creation in 2003). This page is at JunLper (with an L) which wouldn't be a useful redirect for anything but the twitter personality, imo. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
hatnote on the page "JUNIPER" redirects here. For other uses, see Juniper (disambiguation). Gnangarra 07:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JUNIPER redirects there, but "Juniper" doesnt. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
spelt JUNIPER with an I this is not what people searching for JUNIPER are looking for, the article has a hat note redirecting to Juniper (disambiguation) and its listed there. We dont redirect from spelling errors, and definitely dont list those spelling errors on DAB pages. These links are being put in place to pretend the article isnt a walled garden of without notability. Gnangarra 13:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:DIFFCAPS. From a quick glance, it seems like no other page at Juniper (disambiguation) uses an all-caps stylization that could be confused with JUN[L]PER. The closest are Juniper Networks, which uses an all-caps, san-serif stylization with a similar I/l but includes "Networks" prominently and the defunct Juniper Bank, which uses an all-caps stylization but in a serif font so the I is easily discernible. By contrast, the Twitter account prominently and consistently uses all-caps in its stylization to try and confuse people. The name is also apparently pronounced like "Juniper", so unless there's clear evidence of other Junipers using an all-caps stylization, there isn't really an issue with this that the current hatnote to the DAB isn't solving. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's sufficient coverage here from reliable sources (e.g. Insider, RS, Vox, Buzzfeed News, Techdirt, etc.) over the past couple years that WP:GNG seems to be met. It's not an obviously clear case, but there's enough in-depth coverage spread out over all the sources. Redirecting wouldn't make sense because it's an WP:XY type situation where goblin mode and a subsection about Twitter bans could all be plausible targets. It's better to have one central page instead of splitting up the content and padding it with extra cross-referencing as some have suggested. As I said above, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE does not apply here because the request is not unequivocal (she's also said she wouldn't mind the article being kept) and she's a public figure per WP:LOWPROFILE (multiple interviews, huge following with 100s of thousands of followers and millions of views). I also don't think that consensus is actually equally split here as many of the delete !votes are based in WP:IDONTLIKEIT/WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS type votes incorrectly asserting that notability can't be derived from Twitter, that articles about living people must include more details about the actual person even if they are pseudonymous, or that other similarly-popular accounts don't have articles, though that is left to the discretion of the closing admin. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are a million Twitter shitposters out there, many of them setting some trends. What makes this user different? It's not notable in the slightest. -- User:Meme_scholar0. 15:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note This is yet another OTHERSTUFF IDONTLIKEIT argument which doesnt ignores actual sources and claims a lack of notability based on the subjects status as primarily a twitter account. Also, this is the accounts 16th total edit and first AFD edit. Googleguy007 (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Two popular tweets do not qualify a person for inclusion in Wikipedia. Zacwill (talk) 03:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note this argument doesn’t deal with actual notability or sources. Googleguy007 (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that this individual has no "actual notability". In any case, arguing against every deletion vote individually, as you're doing on this page, feels BLUDGEON-y. Zacwill (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Googleguy007: I think the amount of replies to delete !votes are a bit excessive now. We should trust the closing admin's (or non-admin) judgement, as they will toss out the non policy-based comments. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 08:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Content here might make sense in the context of other articles, but the subject themselves I don't think has sustained, in-depth coverage of themselves, versus talking about goblin mode or spats with other internet celebrities. No one is talking about them outside of coverage of those specific kerfuffles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Considering previous precedent with YouTuber article deletions, I believe this far from meets the notability requirements despite having several high profile news articles as she isn't as high profile enough like Dril for example. SpeedrunnerInTraining (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What? Being "high profile" is not part of our notability guidelines. Also Junlper is not primarily a YouTuber so applying those precedents (which you have not cited) does not make much sense. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I am not at all a particularly experienced editor. I just believed that considering both are social media entities, I would apply the logic of an account being allowed to have an article would be similar. As for what I was attempting to refer to, here Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability. SpeedrunnerInTraining (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edmond Davis[edit]

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

Article created by user with a WP:COI, only references are WP:ROUTINE, no evidence of notability. glman (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I vote not to delete the Edmond Davis article at this time. The references, or "no evidence of notability," will be supported by external and internal links or hyperlinks. 'Edmond Davis' is a new page, and we will get this right. For the time being, we will let it remain with the references it already has. This is only a matter of proper citation. I kept adding hyperlinks (wikilinks) to the truth of who he is. I will just use his book, website, and other news articles. I had those before. I support keeping it as it is for the time being. ElinKerry (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC) — ElinKerry (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
What's given is primary sourcing, do you have better links you can share? Oaktree b (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings all,
The Edmond Davis article should be Edmond W. Davis, but I digress. It should remain attached as a resource at this time. Elin Kerry should put more information with citation as it grows, but keep it as a valid and open wiki page. SocialHistorian 76 (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC) — SocialHistorian 76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
There are none, that's what we're looking for. Oaktree b (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: He wrote a book, but the source used doesn't say what it's called, and I can't find mention of it. There is no coverage of this individual, likely not passing PROF or AUTHOR. Hosting workshops is not notable, appears to be a working academic. Oaktree b (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Edmond W. Davis brings up a bit more, the first thing is his ImDB page (which isn't useful), a bunch of biographical links and his youtube page. Long way from GNG or notability. Appears to be PROMO for his other ventures. Oaktree b (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    THE NAME OF THE BOOK IS CALLED, 'PIONEERING AFRICAN AMERICAN AVIATORS FEATURING THE TUSKEGEE AIRMEN OF ARKANSAS' Here is the link. [6]https://www.thenewsstar.com/story/news/local/2015/02/06/tuskegee-airmen-honored-chennault-saturday/22992471/ Alvinrobertson1 (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope all is well all, (glman) Professor Davis or this article about him should stay. Any scholar who's done these thing below can attest to that. Below is my explanation to why I think the article should stay or is relevant to any encyclopedia addition.
1. Edmond Davis wrote Arkansas' first ever Tuskegee Airmen history textbook used in k-12
and in the college classrooms in Arkansas
2. Davis started the nation's first ever Historically Black College and/or University
Black Wall Street Career Fest
3. He was the speechwriter and biographer for the nation's last living CPTP Flight
Instructor for the Tuskegee Airmen, Dr. Milton P. Crenchaw (1919-2015).
4. He was the host & producer of America's only weekly radio show designed to address and
seek solutions to Black fratricides in the U.S. (KEEPING IT 100 WITH DORI) -or- The
Derek Olivier Research Institute (D.O.R.I.)
5. He wrote the 1st article in the world that discussed Black & Brown elements of STEM in
the third decade of the 21st century
6. He was the only Director of Career Services in the U.S. to have a short documentary
of his life, a 20 year college professor, a community activist, an Amazon #1 new
release author, a radio host/producer, and a wrote a Tuskegee Airmen history book.
These are all newsworthy also for wikipedia, but he still doing things. My vote is to keep the article for Professor Edmond Davis operational. Thank you. Alvinrobertson1 (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC) — Alvinrobertson1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
. Edmond Davis wrote Arkansas' first ever Tuskegee Airmen history textbook used in k-12
and in the college classrooms in Arkansas
Source: [7]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271702221_Pioneering_African_American_Aviators_featuring_the_Tuskegee_Airmen_of_Arkansas_with_Foreword_by_Dr_Roscoe_D_Draper
2. Davis started the nation's first ever Historically Black College and/or University
Black Wall Street Career Fest
Source: [8]https://www.thehbcucareercenter.com/blog/arkansas-baptist-college-hosts-the-first-hbcu-black-wall-street-career-fest
3. He was the speechwriter and biographer for the nation's last living CPTP Flight
Instructor for the Tuskegee Airmen, Dr. Milton P. Crenchaw (1919-2015).
Source: [9]https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/crenchaw-millton-pitts-1919/#:~:text=Crenchaw%20was%20the%20genesis%20behind,humanities%20from%20Arkansas%20Baptist%20College.
4. He was the host & producer of America's only weekly radio show designed to address and seek solutions to Black fratricides in the U.S. (KEEPING IT 100 WITH DORI) -or- The
Derek Olivier Research Institute (D.O.R.I.)
Source: [10]https://www.mychesco.com/a/news/social-issues/african-american-interests/former-coatesville-area-hs-football-players-graduates-featured-on-national-radio/
5. He wrote the 1st article in the world that discussed "Black & Brown" elements of STEM in the third decade of the 21st century. The international magazine was Enterprise Viewpoint in Jan. 2023.
Source: [11]https://enterpriseviewpoint.com/black-brown-horizons-tech-diversity-growth-in-the-2020s/
6. He was the only Director of Career Services in the U.S. to have a short documentary
of his life, a 20 year college professor, a community activist, an Amazon #1 new
release author, a radio host/producer, and a wrote a Tuskegee Airmen history book.
Source: National Center for Educational Statistics: [12]https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/csc/postsecondary-faculty
These are all newsworthy also for Wikipedia, but he still doing things. My vote is to keep the article for Professor Edmond Davis operational. Alvinrobertson1 (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Siaka Haidara[edit]

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

This football player does not seem notable at this step, per WP:ATHLETE. His highest accomplishment seems to be playing at the 2nd tier of Greek football in 2021-22, totaling 3 appearances in a season (0 goals). The single source is a soccerway.com link, of unknown reliability. Place Clichy (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dancing on Ice. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing on Ice: The Tour[edit]

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

Pure WP:FANCRUFT. PROD was removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of people considered father or mother of a field in India[edit]

List of people considered father or mother of a field in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Complete fancruft. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 14:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Most of this chart is unsourced, rest is only passing mentions elsewhere. I'd !keep if we had sourcing for the majority of it; as it is, we have 5 references for a list that is easily double or triple that number. Could very well be hokum, with no sourcing, we can't prove or disprove anything. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and India. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete limited refs, this feels more like a school project than a page deserving of a full article Yoblyblob (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Grapes of Wrath (band) in absence of opposition. ✗plicit 23:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Jones (musician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, whose principal notability claim is as a band member and session player rather than as an individual. Full disclosure, I was actually the original creator of this, under the inclusion standards that applied in 2004 -- but WP:NMUSIC has been tightened up considerably in the past 20 years, and it's no longer clear that Jones would pass contemporary standards anymore.
At the time, the notability criterion he passed was "member of two notable bands" -- but even that's strictly a technicality, because Band #2 was really just Band #1 picking a new name when one founding member left, and then went back to its original name later on when the band patched it up with the prodigal. So fundamentally he was really just a member of one notable band that underwent a temporary name change, rather than two genuinely distinct bands who attained notability independently of each other.
Other than that, he has been a session player on other musicians' albums and tours, but has never been a solo artist in his own right -- and that content is sourced entirely to glancing namechecks of Jones's existence as a session player rather than any coverage that's substantively about Jones for the purposes of getting him over GNG.
Two of his other three fellow Grapes just have redirects to the band rather than their own standalone BLPs, and the third also just had a redirect until an WP:SPA with a possible WP:COI turned it into an article three days ago that was promptly put up for WP:AFD as not properly sourcing standalone notability independently of the band either. So under 2023-vintage standards, all Jones really needs is a redirect to The Grapes of Wrath (band) rather than his own standalone article as a separate topic. Bearcat (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • information 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.
Related discussions: 2023-09 Kevin Kane (musician) (closed as redirect)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

R. N. Mukhija[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO with no significant independent coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dying Earth. History preserved so editors can do the necessary merging Spartaz Humbug! 05:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dying Earth characters[edit]

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

As far as I can recall, with the exception of Liane the Wayfarer and one or two minor characters, none of the other characters appears in more than one story in the series. The significant details can be merged into each individual work's article. Also, two of the books are not mentioned here. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources do not really relate to this discussion. They deal with the author and the works, not a list of characters. No one is debating that the author or works are non-notable. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 12:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The author and the works may be the main topic of those, but all of them also have something to say on the characters, as a group and individual ones, if briefly. Daranios (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or merge to the respective books and redirect to Dying Earth seem both fine (with their pros and cons) to me. This list is in bad shape as it lacks both detailed references (even though everything can be verified by going through the books) and commentary, but not to the point of being a case of WP:TNT. It's true that Rhialto the Marvelous has a different cast of characters than The Dying Earth, but all books share the same notable setting. And having a list of character for a setting even if a number of characters appear only in one work is common practice, just compare List of Star Wars characters and the like. In contrast to what the nomination claims, for The Dying Earth it is the characters who link the short stories, with one main character becoming a side character of the next story and such. Aside from Liane, at least Turjan, T'sais, T'sain and the minor character Kandive appear in more than one story. As for "two of the books are not mentioned here", that means the list is incomplete. That's not a reason for deletion, rather one to WP:JUSTFIXIT. So in my view no convincing rationale for deletion has been brought forward. Daranios (talk) 10:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect per all. I would accept merging to more than one target, and that can be worked out through editing. Doesn't have enough coverage, but support WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 James Dewar (musician). Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stumbledown Romancer[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010 and unsourced. Fails the general and album-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to James Dewar (musician): Found a couple brief mentions but nothing substantial enough for notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 13:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minamoto Takahito[edit]

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

Person is not notable--this is a BLP without secondary sourcing, and I can't find any (outside of social media and user-submitted blurbs like this. It also was a total puff piece, written by someone who may be a COI editor who's playing ignorant. Drmies (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - not notable and quite likely self-promotional or at least connected promotion. Canterbury Tail talk 13:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Japan. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Speedy Delete, 2 out of 3 of the sources are either his company's page, or his own website. -I.R.B.A.T(yell at me) (The IRBAT Files) 14:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No objection to speedy, but waiting out the normal AfD period would foreclose process objections. BD2412 T 22:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noting here for posterity or a pending SPI that although the accounts involved in creating this page have gone silent, a Japan-based IP attempted to remove the link to the deletion discussion with the edit summary Removed unsourced information. Dekimasuよ! 07:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Control-\[edit]

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

Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability guideline Chidgk1 (talk) 12:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator - thanks for improving Chidgk1 (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to C0 and C1 control codes#Field_separators, where File separator already points. No detailed coverage to justify a stand-alone article. Walt Yoder (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article title clearly indicates a keypress combination, not a control code. I don't think producing the control code is a common use for this keypress (nor for the character that it generates). So if this is to be redirected, the only plausible redirect target would be Signal (IPC) § SIGQUIT, the most common use of this keypress combination. But I think it makes more sense as a standalone article, because that target would not connect it to its other uses (including the control code). I have expanded the article to source a few of the more common uses of this keypress combination. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article meets WP:GNG, and thanks to David Eppstein that notability seems fairly demonstrated per WP:HEY. - Aoidh (talk) 07:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with a nod to David Eppstein's Heymanning of the page. XOR'easter (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Abarca Cidón[edit]

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

Spanish doctor, lawyer, and businessman. Fails WP:GNG, coverage is incidental, owned media such as ey.com, press releases. No inherent notability. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Law, Medicine, and Spain. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:ROTM businessman doing his job. Nothing to suggest a pass at WP:BIO 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:Juan Abarca Cidón is a physician and doctor with several scientific publications, he is the head of the third largest hospital group in Spain. There is a lot of media coverage because he has raised the controversy about public health and private health, and he is an advisor to the government. In the Talk section of the article, you can see links to numerous independent publications about him in which he is featured.--DamAzul (talk) 08:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Well known and important in the health and political sector. Appropriate references according to Wikipedia standards.--Miskito89 (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion relative to Wikipedia's Deletion policy is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America1000 12:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Control-\[edit]

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

Does this really deserve its own article? I don't think so. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mahathir Mohamad's defamation lawsuit against Far Eastern Economic Review[edit]

Mahathir Mohamad's defamation lawsuit against Far Eastern Economic Review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A lawsuit filed by Malaysia's prime minister & settled out of court - this is not notable and would be a redirect if the title page were possibly a search term that anyone would use, which I submit they would not. It's not really a merge, more a single line mention in the Mahathir Mohamad article. So delete. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb Which "India's prime minister"? Are you trying to say 'Malaysia''s prime minister? ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 15:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite right, my bad. Type in haste, regret at leisure... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Clearly not remotely notable as a standalone article. Merits a single sentence in the article for Mahathir Mohamad at best. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Company man[edit]

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

Hard to tell whether this is true or not Chidgk1 (talk) 11:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I was going to suggest draftify as it has zero citations, but it's had a no citations hatnote since 2008. Delete per WP:NOCITE ~ Argenti Aertheri(Chat?) 23:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A quick Google Books search suggests that the oil industry definition here is accurate, and that sources exist that could support it. Will Pettijohn's Oil & Gas Handbook (2012) defines the role as the top supervisor [...] responsible for the operator's interest in the well. Rappini and Neto's Company Man: The Well Constructor in the Offshore World (2022) says the Company Man is [...] the onsite professional directly responsible for coordinating and managing well construction and maintenance in a safe and efficient way. Ron Baker's A Primer of Oil-well Drilling (1979) says the company man is in direct charge of all the company activities on the drilling location. Adam Sampson (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment in response to Chidgk1: this absolutely "true". I even suspect that "company man" appears on some business cards. On an offshore oil rig, all the work is done for the big oil company under contract by other "oilfield service companies": the drilling company/rig owner plus specialists such as wireline testing companies and mud companies. There's normally just one employee of the actual oil company that's paying for all this and will own the well -- that's the "company man" who's there to supervise these contractors.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WBEM (AM)[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years - it appears that the claims on the page are unverified and may never be. Unlikely that a tiny AM station ever got the kind of coverage needed to meet the WP:GNG but I await with interest others showing me how I'm wrong. JMWt (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Pennsylvania. JMWt (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete; fails WP:GNG. - Altenmann >talk 18:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Toughie because the location does not have full-scan newspaper, but I have scraped about five sources. There is stuff that is quite mushy and SYNTHy. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Sammi Brie's sources seem to provide SIGCOV of the topic when considering the alternate call signs and ownership. —siroχo 18:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the newly-added source material would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Of the sources added to the article there appears to be enough WP:SIGCOV from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette articles to meet the GNG. Let'srun (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danny "Danno" Williams[edit]

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

Many sources in the article are primary/unreliable, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) characters#Danny "Danno" Williams. Spinixster (chat!) 08:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 08:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No opinion on whether to keep or delete, but the proposed merge target would be inappropriate as Hawaii Five-O (and thus this character) has had two different iterations. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is the best merge/redirect target as the original Hawaii Five-O series does not have a list of characters page, and either way, the two iterations of the character are pretty much the same. Spinixster (chat!) 08:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Further to this, there is also a similar Steve McGarrett created in 2007. If you look at the Hawaii Five-O navbox, they appear to be the only who characters like this. Chin Ho Kelly is a redirect. — Maile (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but divide the information between the original series characters and the reboot. That would be the best solution, IMO. TH1980 (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning keep, as a redirect can not point to multiple targets, and disambiguation is inappropriate for multiple iterations of a single character, which leaves this as the equivalent of a WP:BROADCONCEPT article on the topic. BD2412 T 17:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because we can't redirect for reasons cited above. Now for the improved sourcing that the article needs. Mystery Scene magazine feels editorialy. It's About TV is a direct discussion of the character but the author says they've published just one nonfiction book and we'd have to establish that they're generally considered an expert in the field for this source to be considered reliable. Heading to Google Scholar: Aha! [13] [14] Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mystery Scene source is a brief mention. Also, it's written by a writer for the show and is more about his experiences working for the show.
    • It's About TV is a self-published source (check bottom of website)
    • First book source mentions the character in plot summaries, there doesn't seem to be much discussion about the character himself.
    • Second book source is mostly just plot summaries and comparing him to Steve McGarrett. There's little to no commentary about the character.
    Spinixster (chat!) 02:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Mystery Scene isn't suitable, and we'd have to establish that the writer of the self-published source is publicly considered an expert, WP:SPS, for it to be suitable for anything other than that writer's opinion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of the multiple iterations of the character. A standalone page seems better in my opinion for showing these two. GraziePrego (talk) 06:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm seeing many picking Keep due to the character having multiple iterations, but I want to bring out another option to disambiguate the page at Danny Williams instead. Something like the Barry Allen page, with both the original, Arrowverse and DC Extended Universe versions of the Flash listed as well as other people named Barry Allen. Spinixster (chat!) 06:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Rivière[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. According to IMDb, the subject died on 25 April 2011, in Cannes, Alpes-Maritimes, France. Is this true with other references? Tagged for living people on the English Wikipedia, who are dead on other Wikipedias, since February 2022. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 23:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, France, Oceania, and Argentina. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 23:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    French wikipedia doesn't say he's passed away. I guess that's why we don't consider ImdB a reliable source. Oaktree b (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is the Spanish Wp that considers him dead. See my comment below (includes 2 sources that mention it, one in English, one in French but this might all be based on a confusion (another GR who did die in Cannes that day, but not same middle names ). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He was in the Longest Day and the Musketeers movie, I'm amazed there isn't more written about him. All I can find is a cast list for the Longest Day in a period newspaper that lists him. Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's lots of film reviews on Trove which mention him, but nothing substantial. Would he be in old French cinema magazines 9and if so, can anyone access and read them?) IdiotSavant (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless we can pull up sources, I can't find any. Looked at BNF Gallica, the NYT link above and in the Wikipedia library ProQuest. No sources for this actor found. Oaktree b (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oaktree b One of the things that needs to be investigated further is coverage in books, because I'm seeing a fair bit on this actor. Some perhaps meeting SIGCOV. SilverserenC 01:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These are just name drops, I can't find anything extensive about him. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG And NACTOR per nom. UtherSRG (talk) 11:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly passes criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR based on the filmography alone. I'd also not that both images at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Georges_Rivi%C3%A8re_(actor) are of the front covers of French language magazines and have the actor on the front cover which indicates that these publications have significant coverage of the subject. That would seem to indicate that the subject also passes WP:SIGCOV. It's likely that the actor is also covered in other French language media of the period (ie newspaper articles, film criticism, etc.)4meter4 (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those magazines are Spanish-language from Argentina. I suppose they might have coverage in Argentine sources, but I have no idea where to look for archived magazines from that country. Oaktree b (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching my error. I assumed incorrectly that they were French. The point remains the same though. An actor making the front cover of a magazine is going to have SIGCOV in that magazine.4meter4 (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Significant roles (including lead roles) in multiple notable films make him meet WP:NACTOR fairly.
Noted as "the beau of Argentine cinema" -as Jorge Rivier [15].
Filmo:[16][;[17]
As for Rivière being alive or not: even though Sens Critique and various websites and the following book mention him dead 2011 in Cannes [18], I think it is safer and fairer to consider him alive. The absence of any obituary is a rather strong indication, I find.
Not that this is necessary to meet the criterion, but his roles have received coverage. More sources exist, in Spanish for example:
  1. [19]
  2. [20]
  3. [21]
  4. [22]
  5. [23]
etc.
.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Given the nominator's withdrawal and the only "vote" being to Keep the article. Liz Read! Talk! 05:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Out-of-Sync[edit]

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

Article fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and nothing on Newspapers.com. I did a WP:BEFORE and found only one review from TV Guide. Needs two or more reviews to be eligible per NFO, NFSOURCES and WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Lampoon's Golf Punks[edit]

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

Article fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews in Rotten Tomatoes and only listings in Newspapers.com. I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable or reliable enough to pass WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The film is analysed/reviewed at least in:
  1. The Video Movie Guide
  2. The Buzz on Golf
  3. TV Guide
  4. FIlm-Dienst
International distribution.
-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not going to withdraw yet, but I will accept the TV Guide review as one of the suitable and reliable reviews. The Film Creator (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. The sources listed by Mushy Yank (talk · contribs).
    2. "Tom Arnold takes to the links in this movie premiere". Sunday News. 1998-09-06. Archived from the original on 2023-10-17. Retrieved 2023-10-17 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Tom Arnold stars as a hapless, ex-golf pro hired to teach the sport to a gawky group of kids in Fox Family Channel's world premiere movie "National Lampoon's Golf Punks." The family comedy premiere tonight (Sept. 6) at 8 p.m. Down-on-his-luck, Al Oliver (Arnold) is out of work and constantly harassed by two thugs who are sent to collect on a betting debt. Desperate to find a solution to his financial problems, he reluctantly agrees to take a job his brother finds for him at a public golf course, teaching a misfit group of kids how to play the game. Bitter about an incident that cost him a professional golf career, Al hasn't played in years. His work is cut out for him when he meets the unruly and uncoordinated kids he is assigned to teach."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow National Lampoon's Golf Punks to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Masha Danilova[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in Google search. The sources listed in the article are blogs and YouTube video with one source being irrelevant (added for an OR sentece) FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Television, Internet, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : Plenty of sources from Ukrainian news sites, I'm assuming most are RS. Unless someone can explain otherwise, it looks to be at notability. Oaktree b (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are couple unreliable YouTube sources, like ref 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 29, 31, 40, 41, 42, 43
    There is instgram at Ref 39
    muzvar website is unreliable as it is a music portal about show business] and it was used in 1, 5, 17, 19, 25, 38
    that is more than 50% of sources and from initial checks. It is not quantities of refs but the quality FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How could you name YouTube an unreliable source? It is there to suppport the information provided on the song and it's release date. What could be a better sourse of date of release than the platform on which it was released itself? I can't think of any. Also, in Ukrainian Wiki the Muzvar media website is considered a reliable source, as it's a popular music news website among Ukrainians. --Oleh325 (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    that is called a primary source, see WP:BLPPRIMARY, and see WP:VIDEOREF about citing videos
    as for Muzar, different wikis will have different policies but please share the link where the Ukrainian Wiki considers Muzvar as a reliable source. See if there is something like this Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that the usage of primary sources is discouraged, but when there's no alternative I think it might be appropriate to still add it? I will try to remove as much of the video sources as possible tho, thanks. About Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources — the Ukrainian page on it is just a draft for now, and according to WP:RS this one passes. But if others think it's not a reliable one, I can add [unreliable source?] to those citations. --Oleh325 (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oleh325 I think what you can do is to remove all of the information that are not supported with reliable reference or original research. Having a small article that is well-referenced is better than long that have problems.
    Once you addressed the problems that is outlined here in this discussion, then come back and let people know so they can re-assess their vote. Nothing here is set in stone and people are welling to change their minds if presented with a better argument. good luck FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are a lot of articles in Ukrainian language about her on popular Ukrainian news and music websites (TSN, Lux FM, Unian, Muzvar) and more. YouTube video sources are there only to verify the dates provided for her released songs. Also, her songs appeared in Ukrainian music charts, and this info is also presented on the page. --Oleh325 (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The TSN reference is original research that I mentioned in the nom. You used when you said (out of context) "This is not the only case when the singer faced hate or problems due to the popularity of her own name, such situations have happened before.". Lux FM is radio station, how is this reliable? FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by "The TSN reference is original research"? --Oleh325 (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Original research implies that you have made a synthetic sentence as the source does not make the analysis of "This is not the only case when the singer faced hate or problems due to the popularity of her own name". To be honest from all of the other problems with this article this is the least you need to worry about. You have included 14 videos of her songs as references violating primary sources for biographies of living people FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I can rephrase that so it won't appear as original research, but that's the problem of the page, not a problem of notability. And which exact sentence of WP:BLPPRIMARY has been violated? --Oleh325 (talk) 11:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @FuzzyMagma I'm still waiting for the reply to my question here. YouTube is the best source to provide the release information there, beause it's literally the platform it has been published on. I've already removed those references and changed release dates to only showing release month, but I'm still curious about what was the problem with these sources. I need EXACT statements from wiki rules which were violated, not some "oh well it doesn't look alright". If there's a rule you imply I'm breaking, please provide it so I can gain better understanding of the problem. Thanks. --Oleh325 (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have listed 50% of the sources that I know does not meet Wikipedia criteria for reliable sources in my reply to Oaktree b, and one ref that I highlighted as irrelevant ref (see above comment). As for the other refs, The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material as per WP:Burden FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on the explanation above. Does appear somewhat PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is not supported by reliable sources. МУЗВАР is a primary source, and references 2 3 781014 212326 are from all interviews, listings, and trivial articles. YouTube videos and Instagram are also not reliable. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about UNIAN, TSN, Novy channel, INSIDER UA, Gazeta.ua, Focus? There's only one instagram refference, and YouTube ones are to support the statements about release dates. I mean it's better to have sources to support the info, than just to leave it out? --Oleh325 (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've updated the page, removed YouTube references where I could (although if I should remove ALL of them — let me know), added more references from other websites than MUZVAR and removed some of the MUZVAR ones. Also, I've changed the sentence which was correctly identified as original research by FuzzyMagma. Let me know if you still think something should be changed, thanks! --Oleh325 (talk) 11:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry you cannot just remove references and you still have the same article size. When you remove a source this means also removing the information cited from that source. You cannot just shift sources and leave the text. FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well why would I change it, if the information is still present on the sources that were left? Or the new ones I've added. --Oleh325 (talk) 10:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    new ref 6 and 4 are not reliable too. How did you consider ref 3 to be reliable? I am really not sure if you understand the problem here. please check Wikipedia:Competence is required as now I can see that you do not have the ability to assess sources FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just removed those three, those weren't new, I just missed them when changing the other ones. --Oleh325 (talk) 10:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

St. Paul's Church,Banda[edit]

St. Paul's Church,Banda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability established anywhere in the article. No WP:RS provided. Fails per WP:GNG. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not notable. My search came up empty after refining it to "St. Paul's Church"+"Banda"+"Uttar Pradesh".
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CSD G5 Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Itzeazy India[edit]

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

a clear WP:ORGCRITE as I could not find any coverage for this business. The article, although a stub, has a promotional tune as in "The company simplifying government documentations for common citizens and offers doorstep citizen services across 12 major cities in India" which is 50% of the article. The sources in the article are not reliable except for The Times of India which according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources " known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage." FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dzwonowo, Wałcz County. If there is interest in a merge the history is preserved Spartaz Humbug! 05:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dzwonowo (hamlet), Wałcz County[edit]

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

Yet another duplicate Polish "hamlet" article. The location in the article is just across the lake from the village of Dzwonowo which we already have an article about (see Dzwonowo, Wałcz County) and is manifestly the same subject. The eteryt database and place-name law (notably a list of place-names for towns and their parts, and so not a simple listing of towns) in the article describes the location as a "forest settlement" (osada leśna) and provide no more detail than this - there is no evidence that the location is populated provided in any of them. The place is also not a hamlet (which would be a przysiółek).

The actual location under discussion is a honey farm (Pasieka Marynia - see their website here: [25] ), the real standard that should be applied here in WP:NCORP, which it obviously fails. Notably, the address given for this location on GMaps is Dzwonowo 27, 78-630 Dzwonowo, Poland, which is part of the same numbered series of houses as the shop in the centre of Dzwonowo village (Dzwonowo 21, 78-630 Dzwonowo, Poland) and the German cemetary just outside of it (Dzwonowo 11A, 78-630 Dzwonowo, Poland). All of which is just a very long way of saying that this is in every way just part of something that we already have an article about.

No point merging since there's no content to merge. No point redirecting as no-one is likely to search this term, not least because the location is not a hamlet. FOARP (talk) 08:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"A hamlet is always part of a larger municipality or may be shared between two municipalities. The difference between a hamlet and a village is that typically a hamlet lacks a compact core settlement and lacks a central building such as a church or inn." - Wikipedia Hamlet V.S. Village PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's the Wikipedia definition of a hamlet. Polish law defines one as:
"przysiółek - skupisko kilku gospodarstw położonych poza zabudową wsi stanowiące integralną część wsi;"
Which in machine translation is:
"hamlet - a cluster of several farms located outside the village, constituting an integral part of the village;"
It appears the reason why this place (eminently a single farm in the village of Dzwonowo) was not classed as a hamlet was because it does not rise to the level of being a "cluster of several farms", so instead it is classed as a "forest settlement" (osada leśna). FOARP (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Per my comments in similar recent discussions, I am not seeing GNG sufficient for stand-alone article, but noting in the main village that it has such a hamlet recognized administratively as a separate entity makes sense. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Garib Dassi[edit]

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

The title is for an Indian sect, which doesn't appear to be notable. And in fact most of the article is about its founder, who has his own article, Bhuriwale. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Insufficient coverage, does not meet notability standards as per WP:GNG Dcotos (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leyenda Viva[edit]

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

My softdel/redirect was undone, but the reason for it still stands. As I said before, "Two weeks on a genre chart without touching the Billboard 200, especially for an artist whose previous albums all charted in the latter chart's top five, is not very impressive. Beyond that, I saw a small handful of articles about the album's release, but no reviews or further coverage. Not convinced this is enough for notability by our standards." Redirect to 6ix9ine. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Luboń, Pomeranian Voivodeship. History is retained if anyone wants to merge anything Spartaz Humbug! 05:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luboń (hamlet), Pomeranian Voivodeship[edit]

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

Manifestly another duplicate article (see the village of Luboń, Pomeranian Voivodeship, which the location given in the article is near to). The place-name law sources all describe this as a "forest settlement" (osada leśna), not a hamlet (przysiółek). There is no evidence of the place being populated in any of these sources. The postal-directory source mentions only one place with this name, manifestly the village.

No point merging as asides from describing this as a "hamlet" the article content does not differ to that of the "village" - the only difference is the infobox content about post-codes and repetitive sources, which simply for the sake of completeness I have already added. Similarly, no-one is going to be searching this term (especially as this place is not a hamlet) so no need for a redirect. WP:BEFORE does not show up any sources except for the village. FOARP (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • They have different SIMC IDs; both are named as Luboń. The coordinates here are different, and point to a place with the name Luboń Leśniczówka on some maps. There is another name Luboń-Wybudowania nearby. Peter James (talk) 12:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    SIMC IDs are place-attributes, not a form of legal recognition reserved only for inhabited populated places. My Polish is not particularly great, but AFAIK "Luboń Leśniczówka" is just "Luboń forestry", and "Luboń-Wybudowania" just means "Luboń-construction" - these are just buildings within the village of Luboń. The title is incorrect as this is not a hamlet (przysiółek) but a "forest settlement" (osada leśna). Polish law defines a settlement (osada) as follows:
    "osada - niewielką jednostkę osadniczą na terenie wiejskim o odmiennym (wyróżniającym się) charakterze zabudowy albo zamieszkaną przez ludność związaną z określonym miejscem lub rodzajem pracy, w szczególności: osadę młyńską, osadę leśną, osadę rybacką, osadę kolejową, osadę po byłym państwowym gospodarstwie rolnym; osada może być samodzielna lub może stanowić część innej jednostki osadniczej;"
    Or in machine translation:
    "settlement - a small settlement unit in a rural area with a different (distinct) character of development or inhabited by people associated with a specific place or type of work, in particular: a mill settlement, a forest settlement, a fishing settlement, a railway settlement, a settlement of a former state farm; the settlement may be independent or may constitute part of another settlement unit;" (emphasis added)
    From this you can see that the location need not actually be populated (emphasis on the "or inhabited" part of this) or independent. In this case, it's clear that it is not independent. WP:GEOLAND confers recognition on legally-recognised populated places, not mere parts of them that are not necessarily populated.
    It should also be noted that the locations are unsourced, but anyway in the same area. FOARP (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Settlement means that it is (or was) populated; the alternative to "inhabited by people associated with a specific place or type of work" is not "uninhabited". Peter James (talk) 13:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      But in the Polish law it also includes locations just "with a different (distinct) character of development" that aren't necessarily inhabited. This is not a hamlet, let alone a village - the term for that in Polish is different. It also isn't separate to the village of Luboń, so WP:NOPAGE would apply in any case. FOARP (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Settlements, not locations. WP:NOPAGE probably applies, but it would be more useful to make these into lists. Peter James (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        But to be a “settlement” in Polish law does not require that the location was necessarily ever populated, and in this case the thing referred to is clearly the same as that in another article (a “settlement” inside a “village” with exactly the same name). FOARP (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the definition of "jednostka osadnicza" means it was populated. It's possible that it would include somewhere that was built and then abandoned before people moved in, but without examples we don't know that is the case, and even if it is we shouldn't make guidelines based on it. There's also no source to say it's in the village with the same name, only that it's in Gmina Lipnica. Peter James (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"There's also no source to say it's in the village with the same name, only that it's in Gmina Lipnica" - It is, I think you have to acknowledge, unlikely that two locations with the same name located in essentially the same place aren't going to be essentially the same thing. The legal definition of osada explicitly allows that it can be part of another settlement. Other factors that indicate that they are the same thing include the postal register including only a single listing for Luboń in Lipnica, and the Polish GUS/BDL database including data only for a single Luboń in Lipnica (search here), so from the point of view of both the Polish statistical bureau and the Polish postal service, there is only one Luboń in Lipnica.
What kind of list are you proposing? A list of units in Lipnica might make sense, a list of the one osada in Luboń less so. FOARP (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge. It has some administrative separate existence, but I cannot imagine this passes GNG otherwise. It has no unique history, nothing is known about it. Redirect to the main village, where we can mention the administrative split. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gilgit-Baltistan#Economy and resources. Liz Read! Talk! 07:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of Gilgit-Baltistan[edit]

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

Unneeded CFORK of Gilgit-Baltistan#Economy and resources. No objection to a consensus merge.  // Timothy :: talk  06:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Natg 19 (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clemenger[edit]

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

Only one blue link, and not really suitable as a redirect Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahimsa Entertainment[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Per WP:BEFORE, the search only returns passing mentions, routine PR articles and company directory listings. No significant coverage anywhere.

At this point [27], sources 7, 8, 13 and 14 are tweets. Two self-published and two confirming their involvement as the distributor of the respective films.

Sources 1, 2, 3, and 5 are passing mentions. 4 and 6 are articles generated by their tweets (no significant coverage). Source 9 is a listing again. 10 and 11 are unreliable articles with a passing mention.

Only source 12, [28], with significant coverage. Per WP:RSP: International Business Times is generally considered unreliable.

The article was previously declined by User:AngusWOOF here [29] for not meeting GNG. Another new page reviewer has moved it to mainspace without checking for possible COI on the same day the content was added by the founder and has mentioned Should be good to go with film projects in pipeline WP:CRYSTAL Jeraxmoira (talk) 06:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

X Neural Switcher[edit]

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

No RS on the page, I can't find anything which would meet the GNG. Seems unlikely to be encyclopedic WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 07:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Of note is that WP:SINGER states that subjects may be notable per the criteria there, but this subject-specific notability guideline (WP:SNG) does not provide presumed notability. North America1000 12:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emmalyn (singer)[edit]

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

Article about a singer, not properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The attempted notability claims are that she had a single peak #59 on the charts, which would be fine if the article were well-sourced but is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to have better sourcing than this, and that she was nominated for a minor industry award that doesn't satisfy NMUSIC #8 at all.
For sourcing, we've got things like a link that now lands at this week's Billboard chart (#1 song by Doja Cat, so clearly not a chart from 2009) instead of whatever anybody thought they were linking to at the time, short unsubstantive human interest blurbs of the "local singer does stuff" variety in community hyperlocals in suburban Vancouver, and primary sourcing to Apple Music and IMDb that isn't support for notability at all -- while there is a second valid source for the chart position and an acceptable source for the non-notable award nomination, they're the only things here that are sourced properly. As I already noted, neither of those things are "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass WP:GNG -- but even on a WP:BEFORE search, I can't find anything else besides the Richmond/Surrey/Burnaby pennysavers again. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to G.R.L.: Seems to be more remembered as part of the GRL group, although coverage is about a member that died recently. She was nominated for the Canadian Music Award, but the CBC article already used for sourcing is all there is that I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 03:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the references are adequate for a stand-alone article. After all, she charted. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Canadian Hot 100 is the standard national chart for that country, the subject's song at #59 is verifiable via inline citation in the article, as such WP:NSINGER#C2 is met, notability is presumed. There is sufficient additional verifiable information that we are not at risk of being unable to construct an article of start class or better. —siroχo 05:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Charting is fine if the article is sourced properly. #59 is not a high enough chart position that just technically verifying it via the chart itself would constitute an "inherent" notability freebie that would exempt a person from having to have any valid GNG-worthy sourcing about her at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion but consensus right now is leaning towards Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America1000 12:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Rivera[edit]

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

This is a tough one. A short but strong article for this tyro chef, but when you try and peel back the layers, you quickly find a worrying lack of substance. Source 1 and 3 are interviews. Source 2, the writer asked Rivera a question and he directed the writer to another cook. Source 4, Seattle Mag, is a review-cum-interview that posits the question, "Is Rivera really as great at cooking as he is at marketing himself on social media?" - and we start to get to the heart of the issue right there, IMHO. Source 5 is a podcast interview as is source 6, source 7 (American University Radio), source 9, source 10 and source 11 (the best of 'em, the San Francisco Chronicle podcast features the classic line, in response to the question, what's your deal, "I think, like, I've been asked that for years. Forever now. I'm Eric. I am kind of a chef thing. I don't really know. I mean, honestly, like, I'm kind of in a weird spot right now or I'm evolving kind of into a whole new place for chef restaurant industry thing."

What we have, in summary, is boss-level self-promotion, a lot of podcasts and interviews and oddly enough a failure of WP:GNG. There's no independent SIGCOV at all here. WP:BEFORE gets us some routine 'opening' announcements, but basically we're - if anything - WP:TOOSOON. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I seem to find at least three chefs with this name (and hits for a murderer as well), [30], [31] and [32], each with different hairstyles. One ala Bob Ross, one bald and one in between. I'm going to have to examine each one a bit closer. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I found the murderer, too. A horrible conflation of roles, mind: "I could murder a bacon buttie"... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A non-notable individual with no significant coverage. Also, this is a paid work from Upwork and the creator of this article was also hired to remove the paid tag from another page which can be seen in their contributions. 113.193.45.126 (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As it happens, I'm very uncomfortable with paid editing per se. And I cannot help but recognize the awful aroma of promotion in the menu. But, after all is said and done, notability trumps everything. And the plethora of sources supporting our subject's notability decide the issue. Seattle magazine, San Francisco Chronicle, Food & Wine: these are not trifles. -The Gnome (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Take a closer look at the nomination? Seattle Mag is an interview, San Francisco Chronicle is a podcast, not an independent RS. I saw what you did with the trifles reference, but the sourcing here is definitely fishy. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd rather not close this discussion as No consensus which means we need a little more participation here. If any editors who frequent AFD discussions cruise by this one, please look over the article, sources and weigh in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pärnu Concert Hall. Spartaz Humbug! 05:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pärnu City Orchestra[edit]

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

Nothing I can find that suggests this is notable. The only link from our friends on the page on et.wiki here that seems relevant is this one which would not appear to be enough to meet the WP:GNG on en.wiki JMWt (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music and Estonia. JMWt (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge into Pärnu Concert Hall because it, as well as et:Pärnu Linnaorkester, do have refs (but probably not enough for WP:GNG now). - Altenmann >talk 18:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ANYBIO ("has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary"). —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a policy about individuals. JMWt (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an organization of individuals and, according to my interpretation, would still qualify to remain. I agree that this article's reliance on a single source is a problem. I don't know Estonian, but searches in English and Russian turn up nothing useful. If that one source had come from elsewhere (e.g. personal website, blog, artists agency, minor Estonian publication, etc.), I would've been strongly in favor of deletion. However, it is cited in a national directory and with a sizable entry at that. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's all your opinion, which you are entitled to. However you can't point to a notability policy about *individuals* and use it to claim that an *organisation* is notable. That's not how it works. JMWt (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for telling me how it works. Article still gets a "keep" from me based on criteria 1 and 10 of WP:MUSICBIO. According to the entry in the EMIC database, they re-recorded Eino Tamberg's score for Pimedad aknad [et] (Dark Windows), a late 1960s television series that was restored in 2007. In addition, I have found coverage from Sirp, an arts magazine published by the Estonian Ministry of Culture, and MuusikaPlaneet, a website that covers Estonian music. These will be included in the article shortly. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Tsiounis[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 05:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carter Efe[edit]

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

Does not pass the general or musician notability policies. Quote from previous AFD: Subject seems to appear on news majorly because of his clash with Beri over split percentages which resulted in the removal of the song from some streaming platforms, other than that, nothing better seems to be found out there that makes him notable. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, per above reasoning
Yoblyblob (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More input is definitely needed for keeping...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Cited coverage appears to pass WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, the subject has a charting song so passes criteria 2 of WP:MUSICBIO.4meter4 (talk) 02:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sourcing uses the over the top language we've come to expect from Nigerian sources (subject is releasing a sex tape soon!), but they're in RS, so it's fine. Charting also helps notability. Oaktree b (talk) 11:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 01:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Robinson (Liberian footballer)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_October_11&oldid=1181006757"