Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 21 September 23 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Michel[edit]

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

Lack of Notability, promotional, conflict of interest editing by subject AncientWalrus (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Interesting and multi-faceted American photographer, entrepreneur and writer. Notable enough to be artist-in-residence at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. And yes, article needs some editing and refs. Vysotsky (talk) 10:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Photography, and United States of America. ULPS (talk • contribs) 11:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete - changing !vote to keep per WP:HEY after improvements made by Sj and Drmies. It has been improved with the addition of reliable sources and cleaned up. - Not one of the sources used in the article are independent of the subject. All I am finding in a BEFORE search is social media, his own website, LinkedIn, and more primary sources. What I am not finding are the usual coverage for notable artists and photographers, such as works in notable exhibitions, reviews of his work, or work held in notable museum or national gallery collections. I'm also finding a ton of images that are professional headshots of him, in his own Commons category, mainly uploaded by a banned editor, Russavia, indeffed on multiple language Wikipedias for cross-wiki spamming and socking which may strongly indicate UPE. Neverthless, this photographer does not meet WP:PHOTOGRAPHER nor WP:GNG criteria for inclusion as a notable artist.Netherzone (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My page was never created or edited for payment. I made factual changes to the pages over the years as information changed. Cmichel67 (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You made all these edits without going through the appropriate pathway for editing with WP:COI: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Michel&diff=1036499663&oldid=963970346 You changed wording to sound more flattering, you removed a "citation needed" tag etc. AncientWalrus (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AncientWalrus, thank for the ping. Yes that was my comment, I had noticed that the editor who created the article, User:Russavia, has been globally blocked for socking. But the real smoking gun that this article was created purely for promotional purposes WP:PROMO, WP:NOT is this:[2]. I have counted over 170 photographs depicting this photographer, many of them are vanity shots. To my mind, this is a sure sign of conflict of interest editing, promotional editing or undisclosed paid editing. Something's not right here. Netherzone (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. That may be the pattern you've observed but it is not happening here. As per last search, there were 11,912 photos that I made on commons. The majority are auto-uploads from my flickr account of images created with a creative commons license. I did not initiate these uploads or review them (and they include personal photos of me and other family and friends). They were done by a wikipedia editor. There are good images and bad, personal and professional images in my flickr. I believe that practice has stopped. For many many years, the only images I'm uploading are very high quality images of notable people -- astronauts, nobel laureates, authors - images I make for free and give away under a commons license for the public good. For example, I just spend the day with Dr Tony Fauci and made his portrait for the National Academies -- and made the photos available to the commons. I do this as a matter of practice. Just a quick search on commons will be illustrative. Versions of all of these are now on the commons and have been used in many entries. Cmichel67 (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And here is the big gallery of scientist & engineer portraits that I use for the commons. They are all downloadable and usable with a creative commons attribution license. I do this for free. Cmichel67 (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(each thumbnail is a gallery) Cmichel67 (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The metadata tells a slightly different story, it states that you hold the copyright - "all rights reserved" along with your name and website. However, it seems someone must have provided your permission for Russavia to upload them under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license. Netherzone (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak to the metadata (could have been created in camera) but all of my uploads are licensed creative commons attribution. And also listed that way on Flickr. What happened many years ago with Russavia and other editors is opaque to me - but none of it was done with anything but good intentions. This conversation is seeming intent on punishing me in some way -- rather than trying to help me and the National Academies better contribute to the community. One would think that our serious dedication to providing high quality photography to commons would be easy to observe -- and would be something to praise not create an environment where people who don't understand all the intricacies of wikipedia and are made to feel badly and are punished. Enforcement of rules is important but creating an environment of generosity, kindness, and civility with the big picture in-mind would seem paramount. I'm trying my best! Cmichel67 (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmichel67, I totally get that you are here in good faith, and please rest assured that no one is wanting or trying to punish you. The encyclopedia has a labyrinth of guidelines and policies that exist for one main reason (at least IMHO): to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia. These "rules" if you will, have been drafted over many years collaboratively by the community thru the process of consensus. Some of those guidelines have to do with notability, and how it is established for biographies of living persons (and other subjects), and some are specific to their field of practice. Some of our policies are in place so that the encyclopedia is not used/deployed in certain ways. Others have to do with what constitutes an independent, secondary, reliable source, and significant coverage therein. And others have to do with COI. If these structures were not in place every single garage band in the world would have a WP article about them, as would every person out there looking for a job would want one, and every single advertising/PR agency would be clambering for a high-profile free advertising platform read by millions. So periodically we analyze the contents of the encyclopedia. That is why the editors in this discussion are scrutinizing the article that was put forth here. Let the AfD process unfold naturally, the community will decide the best path forward. Your input is welcome, but you don't solely get to decide the outcome. I hope that helps...! Netherzone (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing @Netherzone: please take this discussion and the article tagging in good faith. Thanks for your tremendous contribs to Commons over the yeras! We are sometimes harder on contributors than others, out of a desire not to show preference; this is not at all personal, and certainly no reflection on the quality of your work. – SJ + 13:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thank you! Cmichel67 (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thank you Cmichel67 (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Few if any articles about the individual. The CBC article is a photo of hot air balloons in Egypt, not the subject of the article, just added as an aside. Working photojournalist it appears. No awards won, no articles about his owrk. Heck one of my photos was 7th place in Wiki Loves Monuments a few years back, I'm nowhere near notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, there are many articles about my work Here and here and here etc. In addition, I'm the founder of Military.com, one of the notable web 1.0 companies still around and the largest military membership organization. Cmichel67 (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this will give more context: Bio Cmichel67 (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs and the Daily mail are not acceptable sources. Daily Mail in particular does not fact check or publishes falsehoods, which actually lowers your brand's credentials. I'd avoid working with them... Oaktree b (talk) 00:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks notable in more than one dimension. A rare case of someone with a prolific Commons portfolio who is notable for something other than photography, but the photography seems notable in its own right. I did a bit of cleanup. – SJ + 13:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate on how Michel passes GNG? Can you provide two sources that demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Or do you think this is not about GNG but rather a specific photographer criterion? The majority of the links provided by Michel very obviously violate one of the 3 requirements which means they ought to not count. AncientWalrus (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure -- the subject seems separately GN for founding and selling two companies (primary coverage in non-fiction work, in nyt + wsj, fellowship); for publishing a reference work that was widely reprinted and used in its field; and for photography work which more recently attracted mention by a range of regional or niche outlets (residency, photo communities, news about two separate events/collections). I added a few examples to the article for clarity. – SJ + 19:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. AncientWalrus (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Military. Netherzone (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for Cmichel67, I'm wondering if your photographs are held in the permanent collections of any notable museums or national galleries. If there are two or three verifiable notable collections that would count towards WP:NARTIST criteria #4, it would really help. I've also added Visual arts, & Military to the delete sort categories to get some more eyes from those WikiProjects. Netherzone (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Although my photographs have been used in museums as part of exhibitions, they are not part of any permanent collections that I know of. That being said, it's not typical that museums collect the work of photojournalists! There might be some hybrid cases, for example, I just photographed Dr Jennifer Doudna for her official Nobel portrait and have photographed many Nobels and National Academies members whose portraits hang at institutions, like this portrait of Dr Margaret Levi, which hangs at Stanford. Cmichel67 (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cmichel67, Is there a CV or resumé somewhere online that would list these? It would help to analyze the collections to see if they may be equivalent to notable museums or national galleries. I had a look at your website, but could not find that info there. Netherzone (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly, not that I know of. The metric for photojournalist is typically where their images appear. But, I'm different than most other photojournalists in that I give away most of my photography. Cmichel67 (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, meets GNG and per the appreciated referencing and explanation of sources by Cmichel167. Someone working on the page can greatly expand it from these, and hopefully Cmichel167 will use his skills at research in editing other Wikipedia articles (but be forewarned, Wikipedia is actually addicting - no joke as Biden would say - so keep that in mind if you do venture out from providing references for your page). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. correction, Cmichel167 has been active on Wikipedia, and of course on commons. My fault for not checking editing history. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for your insight and help Cmichel67 (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please pinpoint the references that in your view demonstrate GNG? There are lots of links and most of them definitely violate at least one of the requirements of a source to count for GNG: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It's important to beware that we have someone with a strong COI taking up a lot of space in the discussion. AncientWalrus (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two things 1. On September 19th 2023 you uploaded 16 portraits of Robert Sapolsky so I stand by the observation that the photographs are not curated before being added to the Commons. 2. You seem to be conflating your activities as an editor with the discussion surrounding the notability (by Wikipedia standards) of the photojournalist Christopher Michel. Also, you may want to read WP:BLUDGEON. Best, --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEPThe attempt to delete this page is completely uncalled for and unjustified. My read on this is that the attempt to delete the entry on Christopher Michel is an attempt at vandalism. BWJones (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC) — BWJones (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that BWJones (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. Edit request performed by AncientWalrus (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BWJones it is strange that this is your first edit after a 16 year editing hiatus (before you had only 5 edits [3]) which makes it look like a sleeper account/sock. Who would not edit for 16 years, remember their login details and come back just now? Do you have any conflict of interest to declare? I note that just a few hours ago, an IP made similar allegations on my talk page [4] [5]. Together with the fact that the subject of the article has heavily edited the article and written the majority of words in this deletion discussion leaves me rather confused. AncientWalrus (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I forgot to mention, there was also this incident today of an IP impersonating an admin and closing the discussion [6].
      AncientWalrus (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: BWJones appears to have a conflict of interest. I'm not outing, as BWJones self-declared that they are "Bryan William Jones" here and providing a link to their website here as well where BWJones states Photo above, courtesy of Christopher Michel. (see https://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/about/) which indicates that BWJones knows the subject of the article and may have been canvassed to vote in this AfD. AncientWalrus (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an attempt at finding reliable sources that discuss the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here and I'll try one more Relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question for @Cmichel67: Given that someone who you've taken a photo of (BWJones) has come here to vote keep, have you contacted him or anyone else on or off Wikipedia asking them to come to your support? See WP:STEALTH. AncientWalrus (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but it's thin. The sourcing is OK, IMO, though I just plucked some feathers from the turkey. It's a good idea for the editor to stay away from the article--and after reading their comments here, and the lengthy and spammy list of links I was ready to vote down the article as well. Fortunately the article is better, and better referenced, than I feared, but I think it's also a good idea for the editor/subject to stay away from this AfD. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - mainly per SJ, and generally agree with Drmies. Doesn't look like any rules have been broken, but Christopher is perhaps learning that autobiographers get a heaping dose of scrutiny and cynicism. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would like to note that editor Netherzone has changed their 'delete' to a 'keep' above, occuring after this relisting. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Randy Kryn! Yes, I've changed my !vote based on the excellent improvements to and clean up of the article - it now makes his notability apparent. Netherzone (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GNG can be shown with sources available including The Washington Post and short piece in USA Today. WikiVirusC(talk) 17:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hey, the sources that have been uncovered since the start of the AfD are sufficient to meet gng. Jacona (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of music featured on Doctor Who[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of music featured on Doctor Who (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 list seems to just be pointless trivia. While it's fun to look through, I don't really see much value in keeping this list around, as a brief search doesn't seem to yield any results indicating that guest music is notable in Doctor Who beyond this one Den of Geek article I found: https://www.denofgeek.com/tv/doctor-who-unforgettable-musical-moments/. While music in Doctor Who seems to be decently notable enough (For instance, the main theme which has its own article) guest music does not seem to demonstrate enough notability to justify a separate list. I don't think there's a viable AtD here, so this is probably one of the few articles I'd suggest outright deletion on. Pokelego999 (talk) 17:29, 15 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, Music, Television, and Lists. Pokelego999 (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. "Pointless trivia" pretty much sums it up. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are no sources that actually provide any notability to this topic, which is essentially on every piece of pre-existing music that was ever used in Doctor Who, no matter how incidentally. An article on the music of Dr. Who, in the sense of the music composed for the series, could potentially have merit, but this list is nothing but pure, non-notable trivia. Rorshacma (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, there are sources. There is the DoG article mentioned in the nomination. And another. And an article in Vice. The role of both the original music and "employment of pop music" in the soundtrack is analysed here (in the chapter "Pop-Rock diegetic music", for instance), insisting the use of guest pop music has a role in the story and is a key component of the film. So, fun, yes, but very much not pointless and not trivial, I'd say. (NB- Music in DW is not only decently notable enough, it's extremely notable!....)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Again, an actual article on the Music of Dr. Who has merit. This current list is not that, though, its just a list of every song ever used in the series with no actual curation limiting it to those that actually had notability or significance, nor any kind of analyses like in the sources you provided. An article about the notable use of music in the series is a valid article - this list is just trivia. Rorshacma (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with above. I definitely feel like rewrites are going to be a necessity for this article, either to accommodate for these new sources, or for the formation of a completely new article covering music as a whole, not just guest music. Pokelego999 (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I checked out your sources, and these are genuinely very good ones that I can't believe I missed during my search. I'm fine to let the article stay now, though it's definitely going to need some rewrites to accommodate the sources in the future if it does. (If this article stays, might try doing that myself, but I'll see how the current discussion goes in light of these being found.) Pokelego999 (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nominators latest comment "I'm fine to let the article stay now, [...]" Christian75 (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LISTN and WP:NOT. Licensed music is used frequently in modern media. This is outside the scope of Wikipedia, and crosses into the scope of databases like allmusic or what-song or even spotify. This just isn't an appropriate subject for a list, and at most, someone could write a short paragraph summarizing the critical reception of the show's music. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per norm, and fully agree with Shorterwalker. ihateneo (talk) 01:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Doctor_Who#Music. This is a poorly referenced list of trivia. I'd support creation of Music of Doctor Who, of course - notable topic to be written. But not in this way. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Other websites such as tunefind.com do the job for listing songs (and much better than WP), just like IMDB does a better job for listing actors. We don't need to record every detail here on WP. – sgeureka t•c 09:25, 20 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! 23:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tolani Alli[edit]

Tolani Alli (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. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Nothing stands out as notable. Previously draftified. Moved to mainspace immediately after an AFC decline with no changes, so little point in sending back to Draft 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:38, 15 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! 23:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Coverage is promo or passing mentions, nothing significant.
JoelleJay (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clear case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Nominating this for AfD alongside List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada and Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada. Any individual events can be added to the respective Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict year-by-year event list. Longhornsg (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (all three): These pages are indeed all examples of what is discourage by WP:NOTMEMORIAL writ large, stringing together events without sufficient notability to have had pages created about them. The appropriate place for notable or significantly covered events is indeed at one of the appropriate year-by-year timelines at Template:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per NOTMEMORIAL. AryKun (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Usefully compiled data for an intensely studied conflict. Can clean up any WP:NOTAMEMORIAL concerns. Mistamystery (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per NOTMEMORIAL. --Shrike (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shrike: What about the other one? It's a bit of an all or nothing issue. They are parallel lists, so surely either both or neither should go unless we want an NPOV crisis on out hands? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Catnapped![edit]

Catnapped! (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)

Just a plot recap and character list, so basically cruft. Sources are user-generated and IMDB. Notability seems weak at best. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:52, 15 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! 23:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the sources above, the subject has notability and the sources demonstrate that. Notability is based on the sources available, not on the current state of the article. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Would sure be nice if the people who found those sources would take the time to add them to the article rather than just do a pro forma search for the sake of inclusionism. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 02:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to the comment above, that the user has said that he is willing to add them. I know next to nothing about anime. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ....: Would sure be nice if the people who found those sources would take the time to add them to the article rather than just do a pro forma search for the sake of inclusionism. is a gratuitous and extremely inappropriate comment, especially when "the people" who found and presented the sources to a deletion discussion that you initiated, have indeed said they are willing to add them to the page......-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely a bit on the snitty side for someone who seems to have missed sources Before, certainly. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those sources look to be mostly user-generated databases of kid's films, which IMO count as trivial mentions and not SIGCOV. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of mergers in Kagoshima Prefecture[edit]

List of mergers in Kagoshima Prefecture (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 list of municipal government mergers does not pass WP:LISTN, as I could find no sources discussing these mergers as a group, and as none of the mergers have pages individually it also does not pass WP:SALAT as it serves no navigational purpose. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, and Japan. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment There are 47 pages in Category:Lists of mergers in Japan for each of the prefectures, and I would recommend against deleting just one. The main article discussing the mergers as a group is Municipal mergers and dissolutions in Japan, and it seems appropriate to split instances of this by prefecture. The Japanese wikipedia has similar lists (though more comprehensive) at ja:Template:都道府県別廃止市町村, with a longer main article at ja:日本の市町村の廃置分合. Maybe mergers or even deletion would be appropriate here, but they should probably be discussed as a group. Reywas92Talk 23:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep mostly on procedural grounds. There are lots of references on the Japanese version of the page, making me think that it's a valid informational list that would be found per LISTN. SALAT does not require a navigational purpose, and the scope is sufficiently limited. SportingFlyer T·C 17:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: it is unbelievable to propose this topic is not discussed in Japanese language sources (newspapers, urban/muninicial planning journals). Article also serves a clear navigation purpose and passes per WP:CLN. It seems this could be an important a piece in a local history SUMMARYSTYLE article structure, it would be odd to delete this piece.  // Timothy :: talk  19:23, 15 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! 23:11, 15 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! 23:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This is the purest form of WP:IINFO. Absolutely nothing gives this data context. Above there is reference to links on the Japanese version of this page, but this is entirely links to the official Japanese Gazette, which of course lists every official event (e.g., promotions, deaths, awards etc.) in tiny one-sentence mentions - this is neither significant coverage nor from a source that exercises any discrimination at all in what it reports. These links are easily reviewed in machine translation. Here's an example:
"Pursuant to the provisions of Article 7, Paragraph 1 of the Local Autonomy Act (Act No. 67 of 1948), Ei-cho, Ijuku-gun, Chiran-cho, Kawabe-gun, and Kawabe-cho, Kawabe - gun , were abolished and their areas were abolished.
Even if these were to be interpreted as significant coverage from a discriminating source, these are not lists of mergers but instead single mentions of single events and therefore don't pass WP:LISTN.
The argument that these are required for navigational purposes is also highly dubious. Just WHAT is it supposed to be helping people navigate? The individual mergers have no articles (nor could they) so it is not helping people navigate mergers. The locations do have articles but we already have pages that would assist with navigating them. Arguing that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is the hoariest of old AFD chestnuts.
The argument from Reywas92 is probably the best but it still falls flat - for a page to be a valid WP:SPLIT it has to have stand-along notability and meet the requirements of WP:NOT per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, and this page clearly does not have that. It might be more economical of everyone's time to delete these articles in one go, but Devonian Wombat's strategy of nominating one of them to see what people say is also a valid approach. FOARP (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm convinced by FOARP's assessment that these are little more than entries on prefectural ticker tape that serve no navigational or encyclopedic purpose. The whole lot should go.
JoelleJay (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These lists mark the conclusion of the history of individually notable populated places and the beginning of the history of subsequent individually notable places, each with significant effects at the local and prefectural level. While the level of sourcing and development of these sorts of articles could be improved, most of the comments in favor of deletion here do not appear to have been preceded by any WP:BEFORE in the native language. Future development of the article would likely describe the effects of these mergers as a group (in this case, altering and determining the current constituent divisions of Kagoshima Prefecture). As an alternative to having an article on each individual merger, or extended discussion about the individual notability of each merger listed, keeping these sorts of articles seems like a better result. Dekimasuよ! 07:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moulvi Syed Qudratullah[edit]

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

Historical scholarship does not document, much less discuss, our subject except as marginalia when discussing a bazaar he had founded which eventually expanded into a town. None of the references in this article are about our subject. As per the rules of Wikipedia, notability is not herited and therefore as there is no sign of independent notability of our subject, this article should be deleted. Jaunpurzada (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As per nom notability is not herited and lacks indepth references.Lankanrhino (talk) 22:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I could not anything that I would qualify as WP:SIGCOV to meet GNG or any other notability standard. Jacona (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Grotts[edit]

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

Lack of notability. No sources in article are enough to establish notability and all a search threw up (a short one, I had to stop before I threw up) were bubbles of self-published guff. Article creator looks very much like either the subject of this bio or a paid contributor. TheLongTone (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep She's called on by media as an "etiquette expert" [7], [8] and [9]. Her publication in the Reader's Digest article also has some discussion in the media. She might pass as AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brief mention of the book here [10] Oaktree b (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that any of those links do anything to establish notability.The firstthree merely quote her; they are not about her. I couldt find the mention in the fourth, but I think it takes more than a mention in an alumnus newletter to establish the notability of a book. Two reviews in independant reputable publications, I believe. TheLongTone (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also point out that the perpetrator of this article (whose editing history- ten edits and then this confection- suggests that they are either Ms Grotts herself or a paid lackey of some stripe) could only come with an Amazon listing and something from a PR company as refs for the "book" (more a booklet; only 58 pages) suggest that there is nothing of any substane out there. Is there a different set of notability criteria for pamphlets?TheLongTone (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:19, 15 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! 22:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 NBCSN#Original programming. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NBC SportsTalk[edit]

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

Subject does not pass WP:GNG as a short-lived television show. Let'srun (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Minecraft server#Notable servers. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hive Games[edit]

Hive Games (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 indication of notability to warrant a standalone article. The scarce articles I've read from reliable, independent sources that do mention it give it barely more than a few words. This was a redirect until several days ago, and I believe it should remain one. Not a debate on deletion, in my opinion, so much as redirecting again to Minecraft server. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Minecraft server#Notable servers per nom. Both of the sources are primary sources (one being an archive link to their forums and the other being a random bedrock edition server tracking website). This does not meet the notability criteria for this to have its own article. Deauthorized. (talk) 01:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Minecraft server#Notable servers: the only sources used in the article are WP:PRIMARY and do not establish notability. A search for sources does not find anything that is independent, reliable and has WP:SIGCOV, so it does not deserve its own article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 08:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that this Wikipedia article may not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, but it's worth noting that Hypixel, Mineplex, and WynnCraft have their own Wikipedia pages, they are similar to what Hive Games or The Hive offers. I will instead try to note more information to the page as possible. ClydeNoIQ. (talk) 07:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. They may not be notable either, or they may have something notable about them this may not. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As it turns out, there was a previous AfD for this topic. Deauthorized. (talk) 03:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Phantoms[edit]

Orlando Phantoms (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 amateur football team. League isn't even notable enough for an article, so can't redirect. No independent sourcing located. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

changed to keep. The 2-part source from CBL62 and the source posted by Randy Kryn are sufficient to pass GNG. Frank Anchor 10:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Others voting delete may know more about this league's lack of notability (I am not familiar with it myself), but the Phantoms seem to have received some SIGCOV. E.g., this, this (part 1/part 2). Cbl62 (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, meets WP:GNG per Cbl62's sources as well as many others available on any search engine, particularly around Kyle Farnsworth's many years playing for the team (for example, see this Sporting News story). Well sourced articles about semi-pro teams, especially ones which win so many championships in their leagues, deserve an article as much as any pro teams. BTW, Wikipedia is a semi-pro encyclopedia. Go Phantoms! Randy Kryn (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not find the sources provided thus far to be enough to establish notability.

Source assessment table: prepared by User:FormalDude
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Port Charlotte Sun Yes Yes No The source primarily discusses the Florida Veterans, only passing mentions of the Phantoms. ✘ No
Orlando Sentinel part 1, part 2 No As an interview it is a primary source and does not count towards notability. Reads like a regurgitation of the Phantom's self-description. No original independent opinion, analysis, or investigation is offered by the source. Yes Yes ✘ No
Sporting News No The limited info about the team is all provided directly by the Phantom's owner. Yes ? The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer in-depth detail. Is primarily about Kyle Farnsworth. ✘ 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}}.
Please ping me if better sources are found. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The credibility of this chart is undermined given the assertion that a 26-paragraph, multi-column feature story focused entirely on the team does not count toward GNG. It has some quotes, like any well-written feature story, but it is not simply an interview; indeed, less than a third of the massive content consists of quotes. Cbl62 (talk) 12:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I struggle to find anything from that source that isn't directly attributed to The Phantoms. Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This source offers none of that and simply repeats what The Phantoms describe themselves as. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, it is not accurate to assert that the article from Sporting News (a major national player) only mentions the Phantoms briefly. To the contrary, there is a long passage that is all about the Phantoms and doesn't even mention Farnsworth:

Torres has owned and managed the Phantoms since 2011. He first went to an FFA practice that year at the request of a friend, and there were players smoking cigarettes on the sideline. Torres played football in high school and a little bit in arena and semi-pro leagues after that, and just wanted to help somebody. Even though the players are unpaid, Torres said the organizations are in the red every year. "I’m happy helping people get somewhere,” Torres said. “I’ll never remember how much money I had. But I'll remember the people." Torres took the organization and built it into much more. There are three types of players it serves — those looking to get into college, those looking to play in arena leagues, Canada or even the NFL, and those who just want to see if they can play football at a competitive level.

Cbl62 (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A 26-paragraph feature story is a trivial mention? Might as well shut down Wikipedia, as millions of pages have just become null and void. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was referring to the Sporting News content that Cbl62 quoted. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 26-paragraph story also is not counted as a GNG source in your chart, which is what I was referring to. As for sources, there are many more than previously mentioned when binging "Kyle Farnsworth" and "Orlando Phantoms", including out of CBS in Detroit. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "26-paragraph" Sentinel piece is not counted for a different reason, obviously it has significant coverage. But that CBS story is even more of a trivial mention than Sporting News. ––FormalDude (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • FormalDude -- You lose all credibility when you claim that a 26-paragraph article from a major media outlet focused entirely on the Phantoms (and consisting of < 33% quotes) is just "an interview" and thus not independent. As for the Sporting News piece, it is a closer call, but it is simply not accurate to assert, as you did, that this is only a brief mention. There is, in fact, some depth to the coverage of the team: it (i) identifies the team's owner and (ii) discusses his background in football, (iii) discusses the length of his ownership, (iv) discusses the unpaid status of players, (v) provides the team's financial results (in the red every year), and (vi) reviews the various types of players attracted to the team and their motivations. Cbl62 (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not just because it's an interview, it's because the whole thing is a puff piece regurgitating the Phantoms with promotional content like:

According to the mission of the Orlando Phantoms, their goal is to develop players who can go abroad to play professionally in the United States, while the team encourages its members to obtain a degree, focus on their families and support each other.

I will admit that the SIGCOV of the Sporting News piece is up for debate, but so is its independence. I've adjusted my source assessment table accordingly. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "puff piece" is a full feature interview in a major newspaper and independent of the team. Please adjust your chart accordingly, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the whole thing is a puff piece regurgitating the Phantoms with promotional content I still haven't yet voted "keep" or "delete" (as this is a close call on GNG), but your continuing efforts to throw out a 26-paragraph feature story from an independent, reliable source are beyond a stretch. If this were mere regurgitation of a team's press release, you would have a point, but that's not what this is. The article reveals that the author conducted multiple interviews with management and players and then wrote the story distilled from all of the interviews and his own independent synthesis of the facts. That is what sports journalism is all about. The fact that the article delves into some inspirational elements (rehabilitation of players on probation, surviving violent incidents, immigrants and working class guys playing for love of the game) shows the depth of coverage and does not undercut the independence of the source. Cbl62 (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see "independent synthesis of the facts" in the Sentinel article. Can you point to any part that isn't directly attributed to The Phantoms or their staff? ––FormalDude (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article on its face reflects that the author interviewed numerous players and team officials to collect as much information about the team. He then wrote a 26-paragraph, two-page feature story about the team. Less than one-third of the article consists of direct quotes from team officials. The remainder consists of the author's synthesis of the facts that he collected during his interviews and research. That's the nature of reporting -- (i) go out and find/collect facts, (ii) decide which facts are significant to your story, and (iii) weave facts together in a compelling or interesting narrative to tell the story. That's what synthesis and reporting are all about. The opposite would be a situation where the writer simply repeats/regurgitates a pre-prepared or canned press release or other piece written by the team -- that's not what this is. Am I missing something? Cbl62 (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        It seems like you're saying no matter how much content is non-independent, it doesn't matter because it was put together by a reliable journalist. That is not the case, a source has to be independent AND reliable to count towards notability.
        You seem to be evading my simple request to provide any part of the source that isn't directly attributed to The Phantoms or their staff. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see more opinions since there is such a difference of opinion regarding these sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The WFTV piece appears to be SIGCOV in a reliable source. Not so much on the other two. If I was forced to decide, I'd lean toward keeping based on all the sources found. Cbl62 (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude: That type of targeted notification seems like blatant canvasing to me. Cbl62 (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to meet all the criteria of WP:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How? There's four possibilities mentioned as being appropriate notifications for users: Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article – nope; Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) – I can't recall scope creep having been involved in related discussions – and he himself stated in response to your notification "I don't know much ... about sports in general"; Editors known for expertise in the field – clearly not per his aforementioned reply; and Editors who have asked to be kept informed – I don't think he's asked to be informed about these discussions, let me know if I'm wrong. Also note that I was recently accused of CANVASSING for notifying actually relevant users who clearly met at least three of the four criteria. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well first off those possibilities are just common examples, they are not the only scenarios that editors are permitted to give talk page notifications. In the chart in the next section it says that a notification is appropriate if its scale is a limited posting, the message is neutral, the audience is non-partisan, and the transparency is open. I've met those four criteria.
I would also say it meets the two examples of editors who participated in related topics and editors known for expertise in their field, as Scope creep has participated in numerous discussions about organizations and has a lot of knowledge about the policies surrounding them, so I thought they may have valuable feedback. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That really doesn't make sense because WP:ORG explicitly states: "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of ... sports teams." Cbl62 (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I didn't know that. I can see the cause for concern, but I assure you I had no intentions of canvassing. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - borderline case but subject has enough coverage to support on notability for inclusion. - Indefensible (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As I see it, this hinges on the usability of the lengthy sentinel source. There are bad arguments on both sides about it; length alone does not make a reliable source usable, it does need to have independent content; but conversely, the presence of quotes and attributed content does not imply that independent content does not also exist. Additional opinions on all the sources, but the Sentinel source in particular, would be helpful in determining consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 19:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • In response to the relisting comment. In the lengthy Sentinel source, I see at the very minimum, 200+ words of SIGCOV about the team. The journalist wrote a secondary synthesis of the interviews as a multi-paragraph summary at the start of the article that includes the player's pasts and expectations, in the context of their membership of the team, with some explanation of the team. These are neither individually attributed within the summary nor attributed to any team representative, but rather it is a statement in the voice of the journalist about the players based on several interviews. There's also secondary information on the monetary requirements/donations to the team.
Beyond that, I see several non-attributed statements interwoven with interviews of members of the team. Regardless of how "puffy" the piece sounds, as is very common for sports journalism, it's not churnalism, as such, unless we have a reason to doubt the publication or the journalist, such non-attributed statements are SIGCOV as well, as we can expect a level of fact-checking. This would push us well above 300 words of SIGCOV on the team, and even more if we count such coverage of individual team members.
My evaluation is that the source provides SIGCOV of the subject at a standard GNG level. —siroχo 22:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WFTV ref should also count towards SIGCOV. I found a couple more refs and edited the article with my vote previously, there might be more out there. - Indefensible (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agnel Gomes[edit]

Agnel Gomes (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)

Please do not confuse him with Angel Gomes. The Goan footballer of this name does not seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC with only database coverage like Tribuna found. His 2 professional matches might be enough to survive a PROD but I'm not seeing enough for the article to be kept. The only other coverage that I could find was a trivial mention on SC Goa's Wordpress blog. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kledis Hereki[edit]

Kledis Hereki (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 evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. I can't find any decent coverage in Albanian and the one provided Greek source is trivial coverage, with only part of one sentence about him. The only other Greek coverage that I can find are stats pages like Epsana, which SPORTBASIC says does not confer notability. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Content will be provided to any editor who wishes to do some sort of merge Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese in Vatican City[edit]

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

There's no sign that this group (of 16 people in 2016) meets WP:GNG. The vast majority of the article is off-topic, being about Vatican-Portuguese relations rather than Portuguese people in Vatican City. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Religion, and Portugal. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources already referenced and linked in the article readily demonstrate GNG, including [11][12] and to a lesser extent [13][14] [15]. It probably makes sense to handle the topic differently, perhaps with a lead rewrite. It does indeed cover history of relations, language, etc. But such a change is an editorial choice, and needn't be enforced at AfD. —siroχo 22:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest that the material on relations might be better covered in an article on Holy See - Portugal relations (which would need to be created, but Spain and France already have such articles, so it would fit well with those). Hmee2 (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 16 people? Nonono. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. the existence of this article did cause me to laugh very hard, but that is not any reason to keep it. a national community of 16 people do not need their own article. DrowssapSMM (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough here or sufficiently notable to warrant an article or satisfy GNG. I note there is an article called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_people#Portuguese_diaspora in need of work that could reasonable incorporate a sentence or a line in a table on the Vatican. Also scope for creating an article on Holy-See Portugal Relations. Hmee2 (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would support some sort of split/merge like this. —siroχo 18:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎. G5 actioned by Bbb23 a couple of days ago. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Salqin Shura council[edit]

Salqin Shura council (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 GNG and NORG. Sources in the article do not support article notability. BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth  // Timothy :: talk  18:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Syria. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    i dont know how to move to drafts can someone do it for me cheers Libya345433 (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been done 3 times before for you (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Godjo J) and each time your article is rejected at AfC and you then proceed to ignore AfC and copy it to mainspace. As the previously mentioned ANI shows you have created a mess that requires cleanup, drafting would only increase this mess by adding another article, since you have shown no sign of listening to the instructions multiple editors have provided you regarding sourcing and restore your unsourced material to mainspace.  // Timothy :: talk  22:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Article author blocked as sock [16].  // Timothy :: talk  12:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7. Liz Read! Talk! 22:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Acharya Vishuddhasagar Ji[edit]

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

I was reading about Monk and saw his pics in Monk#Jainism section...so i came to inform that this person has no significance and just staying with one ref which is from facebook, just self promoting like stuff ... remove its redirects too ... And pls verify if there is any sock puppets like stuff present in this case, ty - AwfulReader(talk) 18:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

War and Peace characters order by appearance[edit]

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

This article is not needed; the intent is served by List of War and Peace characters. If we want to change that list into sequential order, that can be discussed, but what purpose is there to have two identical (ideally, if not in practice) lists of characters, with the only difference being their order? Also, verification of this list seems to be prohibitively difficult.

However, what really struck me are the number of 'blanks' in this article, which should never be included in the article space, but which seem to be here permanently. Examples include "In Book Four????" and "he tells ___________ that" and "In Book xx, He becomes a partisan leader in 1812 (Book .....)." So even though deletion isn't clean up, this only adds additional bases for deletion. Anything useful can be merged to the main list.

In conclusion, being one of the greatest works ever does not mean that War and Peace is exempt from common sense list guidelines. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 17:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Russia. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 17:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. By order of appearance fails WP:NLIST by a wide, wide, wide, wide margin. (Also, the Grammar Police are greatly displeased with the title.) Clarityfiend (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Redundant to the much more appropriate and better organized List of War and Peace characters. As this list contains no sources outside of the book itself and is peppered with what appears to be original research, there is nothing worth merging. Rorshacma (talk) 05:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant and intra-pointless trivia. AryKun (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese in Estonia[edit]

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

There's no sign that this small group meets WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liban Soleman[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Liban Soleman (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 appears to be just a resume of a regular person who has had some government jobs and now works in the private sector. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This article may be eligible for speedy deletion via G4. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Africa. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a promo page (unspecified "key positions", "successfully participated", "unique experience", "comprehensive knowledge", etc) that was already deleted once. Two sources are trivial mentions and others are primary (interview, direct quoted, or official web-site of affiliated organization). Suitskvarts (talk) 10:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty and the Beast: Ugly Face of Prejudice[edit]

Beauty and the Beast: Ugly Face of Prejudice (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:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2011 DonaldD23 talk to me 14:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Selvaraj[edit]

Priya Selvaraj (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 has been speedied, draftified and bringing it here for some form of consensus. I am not sure whether the sourcing establishes notability, nor her first in the field, however I am not certain. Star Mississippi 14:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Medicine, and India. Star Mississippi 14:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Having just redacted a copyright violation I was about to perform an IAR draftification. Since it is now at AfD, I am suggesting deletion. She works in a specialist field, but so do many people. She is doubtless very capable, but such capability within the field is WP:ROTM. I am not persuaded that she passes WP:BIO. There appears to be some sort of claim to inherited notability from her parents! WP:NOTINHERITED applies 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's fairly clear that there's an undeclared COI here. I suggest protecting the page once it's been deleted. Deb (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've filed an SPI which will hopefully assist in stopping the disruption as well if it's endorsed by a clerk and confirmed. Star Mississippi 15:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Courtesy link Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Venkatesh Prasad 1122 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: The two main protagonists in this article are blocked, and the SPI is currently awaiting clerk decisions on tagging and closure. I imagine this AfD will run for the usual seven days. While not suggesting WP:SNOW I will not object in a day or so if someone goes by that route assuming it is still eligible 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Selvaraj does not pass any relevant notability guidelines, and the only sources that cover them in any detail are self-published, some of which I have removed. Neutral on salting the page, but I think that's up to the discretion of the closing administrator. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: An analysis of the references shows only passing mentions of or interviews with Selvaraj. In one she might be the presiding ObGyn, or may be a hospital spokesman. t is not made clear. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well, her photos went viral [17] and she's helped deliver babies in other articles. I'm not seeing notability. An astronaut gave her an award, which isn't terrible notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    She seems to be used as a medical expert by local media, for what it's worth [18] Oaktree b (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Worldiswide (talk) 10:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neither her occupation nor her honors have yet provided sufficient notability. Suitskvarts (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Global TV Demand Awards[edit]

The Global TV Demand Awards (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. Not subject of independent, in-depth coverage in reliable sources. All found sources refer to the subject shows winning one of these awards vs the awards show themselves. spryde | talk 14:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese neighborhood[edit]

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

I don't even know where to begin with trying to source this article, and since it's been problematic for 12 years this may be the best venue. It's not at all clear to me what from the sole source has been included in this article. I suspect it's far too broad for anyone without particular expertise to turn anything up. ~TPW 14:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This seems to be a more or less random bit of text from somewhere. It is probably true rather than false, but is not really a coherent encyclopedic topic, and is not likely to become connected to other articles. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete random copied text, no real encyclopedic subject here. AryKun (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per NOM --Shrike (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese in Slovakia[edit]

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

There's no sign that this group meets WP:GNG. A whole series of these articles has been created through copy-pasting without sufficient attention to notability and with very similar content (which likely explains why the article mistakes Slovakia and Slovenia in its lede). Much of the content (such as on Slovaks who speak Portuguese) is off-topic. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automotive Video Association[edit]

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

Not notable, relies on primary sources, absence of secondary sources Idiosincrático (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Taiwan independence sentiment[edit]

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

I could not find any reliable sources that clearly spelt out the mission of anti Taiwan Independent people and the sources on Anti-Taiwan Independence Sentiment are pass mentioned Ibjaja055 (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Taiwan. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unsourced, and it's hard to see how an article about a sentiment (that is, a feeling) toward a particular subject could be the subject of SIGCOV. We already have articles on the Taiwan independence movement and the Anti-secession law, making this topic superfluous and self-explanatory. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is completely unsourced, and I too could find no sources, which means this article fails to establish that this subject is valid, much less notable. TH1980 (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sack of Cyprus (1368)[edit]

Sack of Cyprus (1368) (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)

5 out of the 6 sources that are cited don't appear to support the content that is attributed to them (I haven't checked the German source and I doubt it would be any different). They all mention a certain Ibrahim Tazi who was in Alexandria and working for the Mamluks, which would be inline with what the RS say about the relations between the Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt (nothing to do with the Marinids) and the kingdom of Cyprus. M.Bitton (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE per nom. All I could find that year was The Mamlukes repulsed another Crusader attack on Alexandria in 1365 and responded by building a small fleet to ravage the coasts of Cyprus in 1368.[19] nothing about Cyprus vs Marinid. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have found nothing to support this. Srnec (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV --Shrike (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bartosz Źrebiec[edit]

Bartosz Źrebiec (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 2014, this Polish musician presents no notability other than as guitarist of Grimlord and that article, as a redirect (and AtD) is not really sufficient as Grimlord is itself not inherently notable per WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Snow, or take your pick of the first three. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marius Bear[edit]

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

Another one of those singers who barely achieved anything, then suddenly became "notable" after participating in a reality show. Pottyantós WC (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Point two of NMUSIC says "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart", it doesn't say you have to be the original performer. But even taking that argument at its best, that still leaves two songs that have passed point 2 of NMUSIC. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 12:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any scope for closing this early? The nominator has been blocked and it seems it's WP:SNOWing. I'm not overly familiar with AfD procedures so I said I'd ask. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 12:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ser!: If the sockpuppetry is confirmed (which is seeming likely) the article can be speedily kept and the nomination deleted as a banned contribution. Deauthorized. (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leander Kills[edit]

Leander Kills (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:RUNOFTHEMILL band only known for participating on a reality show - I suppose WP:REALITYSINGER applies to bands as well? - Pottyantós WC (talk) 14:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Paetz[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG - role as sports anchor and producer has not resulted in SIGCOV in RS, neither has her authorship of 'Blocked : An Unobstructed Dating Narrative about the Undesirable' - strangely not mentioned in an otherwise breathless biography. Beyond the promotional tone, the article does nothing to establish notability and no further SIGCOV was unearthed in a WP:BEFORE (although the book was!)... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify? Are the sources inadequate to support WP:GNG or is the bio too short? Stella8358 (talk) 06:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing found is too short and doesn't support GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maddy Cusack[edit]

Maddy Cusack (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 GNG with a lack of significant coverage on her. Don't be fooled by the refbombing - the articles do not cover Cusack in detail. Also WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies here. Dougal18 (talk) 11:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t let this page get deleted 92.40.215.239 (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the significant coverage from multiple major news sites is about her career, not just her death. As many other people have pointed out in this AfD, her career was as notable as many male footballers with WP articles. Lijil (talk) 12:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - tragic situation, but not a notable individual I'm afraid. GiantSnowman 11:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is defined by coverage in reliable sources. These are BBC, Sky Sports, Athletic, The Guardian, more than enough. Kirill C1 (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is false. 2A02:2F0E:813:B800:4C61:E719:3BF2:41DE (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All the references were published upon her death, and don't state much more than her death and platitudes from those who knew her. She was not notable according to Wikipedia criteria. Ira Leviton (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources should be reliable and independent from subject.
    There is no requirement for them to be published before deaths. There are plenty of articles that exist only with sources that were published after death of the person. Kirill C1 (talk) 09:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So all those news organisations are going to be ignored? What's the point of GNG if you don't want to use it? Toronto Star, San Diego Union Tribune, it's covered pretty world wide. Govvy (talk) 13:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTNEWS. GiantSnowman 07:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It applies to events, not persons. Kirill C1 (talk) 09:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Toronto Star et al are because AP filed a story on her untimely death, not because reporters in Toronto followed her career or, indeed, knew who she was. It's almost inconceivable that they, or any other medium, will file further stories because other than the circumstance of her early passing, she was not a notable public figure. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Toronto Star et al are because AP filed a story on her untimely death, not because reporters in Toronto followed her career or, indeed, knew who she was"
    This doesn't work like that. We need coverage in reliable sources, we don't speculate on the reasons of why coverage exists. Kirill C1 (talk) 09:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    'We' might reflect that a newswire like AP being picked up by global media is not global fame, it's a newswire piece that is news because of her tragically untimely death. Absent that, AP would not have filed and editors from the Cincinatti Conveyancer wouldn't have the chance to pull the story from the wire to fill space. Whoever 'we' are... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The global fame is not necessary for having an article.
    The person is covered in The Guardian, BBC, Athletic Kirill C1 (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: More than enough coverage of her even before this year when she passed, easily at GNG. There is coverage of her death in Sweden and France among other things I found. Article can be expanded. Oaktree b (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This [23], [24], [25], [26]. She was pretty popular with the club and got attention from the media all over that part of England. Oaktree b (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment There is hardly any coverage specifically of Cusack in those sources. Dougal18 (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Dougal18, those are just WP:ROUTINE coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But these football matches are not run-of-the-mill events. Kirill C1 (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Football matches really are... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Oaktree b (talk). Plus there is plenty of mainstream coverage and she is the first female player to play 100 games for Sheffield United. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Oaktree b and Dwanyewest. Lots os sources and clearlu sifignicaint figure for her club. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - agree with Oaktree, Dwaynewest, and Das Osmnezz. Montgomery15 (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no notable coverage before her untimely death. If the sources are out there, then why hasn't the page even got basic things like here appearance stats or career overview? If the page is bought up to standard, then keep (or restore), but as stands, it's a delete.155.190.13.13 (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There was coverage, even though this is not a must for the article to exist. Kirill C1 (talk) 09:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oaktree b. History6042 (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There exists coverage in reliable sources [27]
I would also like to point out that per guides for footballers, a game in a tier is usually enough. This footballer has more than 100 games for her club, and was the first one to do so. Kirill C1 (talk) 10:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
N:FOOTBALL has been scrapped. There has to be significant coverage in reliable sources. A few lines on her career combined with quotes doesn't cut it.Dougal18 (talk) 10:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When?
It doesn't make sense not having a rule for the most popular sport while there are rules for less popular,and even amateur. Kirill C1 (talk) 11:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If she doesn't meet Wikipedia policy WP:GNG, then the article shouldn't be kept. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She meets Wikipedia policy. Kirill C1 (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think there's enough coverage.

Question - at what point is a concensus reached and the article is either deleted or unmarked for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPAG checker (talk • contribs) 15:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Clearly meets GNG, including SIGCOV. The coverage does not have to be from before the subject's death, indeed, we have many historical bios sourced largely from obituaries. The only issue would be if the coverage was only about her death (BLP1E) — which it isn't. It's post-mortem coverage about the life of someone notable: she was evidently quite a successful footballer, who also had a career in media and was popular locally. The article could be expanded, but the notability requirements are easily met. And as someone said, a second flight and youth international footballer (especially the record caps-holder for their club) in men's football would never have the notability questioned. It is sad that she had to die to get widespread SIGCOV, but we can take the sources for what they are. Kingsif (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    a second flight and youth international footballer (especially the record caps-holder for their club) in men's football would never have the notability questioned. How many male footballer AfDs have you participated in that you can make that claim? Because that statement is very inconsistent with what actually happens at AfD. This also is clearly a BIO1E issue: the non-trivial coverage is all concentrated in the days following her death. JoelleJay (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You see me around sports bio AfDs enough, maybe you can count. But don't be pedantic, you know it is generally true. E.g.: I picked a random EFL team (fourth flight Bradford City A.F.C.) and only 3 of their 38 players don't have an article, with only 7 of the players making youth international appearances.
    It's also clearly not a BIO1E issue – as I literally said in my reason – because the coverage is not only about her death, it's about her life, just occurring around her death.
    I might be inclined to suggest an AfD TBAN for you: all you do in AfDs is try to shoehorn random policy reasons to delete to fit any nom, when the policies rarely apply, just listing acronyms without explanation – and then you moodily reply with nonsense like this to anyone who gives good reasons to keep. It's not appropriate behaviour. Kingsif (talk) 00:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SUSTAINED says Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time. It's the attention that needs to be sustained, not the time period covered by the attention. BIO1E also demands the context should be outside a single event; that doesn't meant the focus of the coverage must be entirely on that event, it means that the coverage should be in other contexts. Since all of this coverage is in the context of her death, it does not meet that criterion. JoelleJay (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No second-tier Sheffield United player would have been even proposed to deletion, especially if he had youth caps.
    Or any player from Championship, for that matter. Kirill C1 (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough notable sources. TheKaphox T 21:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree 2A02:C7F:8B85:800:C37:5623:B2EA:EE4B (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment on this AfD is the only contribution for this IP user. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not the above User, however in their defence, lots of us have Dynamic IP addresses. I have contributions on Wikipedia going back to 2007 217.28.6.171 (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sourcing is exclusively reports of her death, with nothing actually demonstrating she was the subject of sustained, significant coverage. The article fails NOTNEWS, NOTMEMORIAL, and BLP1E/BIO1E.
JoelleJay (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The present SIGCOV is not about her death, it is just being published after her death.
If you're mentioning WP:NOTNEWS, the only part of that I can imagine being relevant to an RD bio is "not celebrity ticker" - but that's about "just because a notable person did something, doesn't mean the thing is notable enough to mention". Unless you're suggesting the bio is a current events article?
You surely know that WP:NOTMEMORIAL is just a reminder that new articles about deceased people must meet other notability guidelines, that it isn't a guideline in itself, i.e. referring to it is not a reason to delete.
How about you learn what the policies you love to overcite without any elaboration actually mean before continuing at AfD. Your !votes are always misleading at best. Kingsif (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage is about her death with a few lines about her career. "she played 100 times/works in marketing/list of previous clubs" is not SIGCOV regardless of how many times it is spammed in her article. Dougal18 (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sigcov asks that the RS coverage has more than passing mention about the subject — it feels like you're trying to say that there isn't enough in the sources about just the football to demonstrate that the subject is notable as an individual, when the point of Sigcov is that having sources dedicated about the subject shows that the RS editorially considers them notable enough to write extensively about. So it's not to the same extent but it seems like you are (probably unintentionally as vague references to policy do over time deviate) also tweaking what the guidelines actually are with a mind to deletion. Kingsif (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if the content is what we would normally consider "significant" if it fails WP:SUSTAINED. JoelleJay (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Dougal18 above, the coverage is not significant, it's just reposting of the same few lines of content about her career, no matter how many sources post that same information, that doesn't mean she passes WP:GNG because of this WP:ROUTINE coverage. 100 appearances for a lower league team also didn't generate enough significant, independent coverage either to pass WP:GNG either. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Calling second flight a lower league seems like deliberate downplaying; it's still a pro league. Lack of independent Sigcov at the time can also be seen with female footballers achieving such milestones in Chanpions League teams, we're not here to RGW but we can accept simply belated sources for something that we all know is notable. Kingsif (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
we're not here to RGW no we aren't, so if she doesn't pass WP:GNG, then she shouldn't have an article. And nobody (not even any of the keep voters) have demonstrated multiple sources of significant coverage, which is what GNG requires. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. If she only had an obit in a local newspaper, I'd likely agree with delete voters, but Cusack has received SIGCOV in major media outlets around the world, including BBC (here and here) , The Times (here), The Sun (here, here, here, here), Daily Mail (here, here, here, here, here, here), Colombia (here), Spain (here), France (here), Italy (here), Argentina (here and here), Canada (here) and USA (here and here). I doubt there's more than 50 women footballers who have ever received such breadth of international coverage. Warrants a stand-alone encyclopedia article. Cbl62 (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of those are just reprints of the same information, which is just a basic career summary. The same thing reprinted in 20 newspapers doesn't make it more significant coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All of those are just reprints" That's simply false, and I don't understand why you would resort to such misrepresntation. By way of example, there are five or six completely separate pieces in The Daily Mail alone. You also ignore the main point -- the worldwide interest in this person bears importantly on her notability. I think you have become too invested in trying to delete this article. Cbl62 (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not personalise this? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out a blatant misrepresentation of fact is not personalizing. Cbl62 (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my comment below instead of repeating the same baseless accusations. The sources that are reliable sources are almost all reprints of the Associated Press. I don't require a reply of you accusing me of misrepresenting yet again... Joseph2302 (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"I think you have become too invested in trying to delete this article." is pretty personal. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) The Sun and Daily Mail aren't reliable sources, so I ignored them from your list (and they cannot be considered towards WP:GNG as they are both perennial sources). All of the other countries' articles are just translations of the same basic information about her- it isn't significant coverage as per the Wikipedia definition. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BBC and The Times are among the most reliable sources known to mankind. Also, I am familiar with the Wikipedia definition of WP:SIGCOV, and each of the articles linked "addresses the topic directly and in detail" and consists of "more than a trivial mention." I am trying to better understand your fierce opposition to the Maddy Cusack article. As someone who has created so many stand-alone articles on women with far less SIGCOV than Cusack (e.g., Kathleen Lidderdale, Judith Webb), it is somewhat puzzling. Cbl62 (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're going ad hominem here - can we perhaps stick to the policy based discussion? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. The assertion that all 20-some articles were "reprints" riled me up a bit. Cbl62 (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other articles I've created are irrelevant to this discussion. I don't have an agenda with this article, contrary to what Cbl62 is trying to accuse me of. I don't require any further responses from this editor who just wants to accuse me of some made up bias, WP:ANI will be consulted if they continue this line of attack. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I struck my comment about your other articles and expressed my agreement with Alexandermcnabb's apt suggestion before you added your last comment about WP:ANI. Nothing I wrote was intended as a personal attack. I apologize if you viewed it that way and suggest we move on. You are, of course, free to consult ANI if you feel strongly. Cbl62 (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Things get reported widely in the news all the time. That doesn't mean they are notable. Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time means that the attention should be received over a significant period of time, not just in a short burst. We've maintained this standard for thousands of victims of tragedies who are profiled significantly in worldwide media upon their death and then never discussed again.
This and this BBC pieces are primary reporting entirely in the context of her death. The Times piece is another version of the second BBC article. The Sun and Daily Mail are deprecated so can't be used for anything here (I recommend adding this script that highlights consensus-unreliable sources in pink). Each of the other sources you mention is a variation on the same announcement of her death. If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual. JoelleJay (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Women athletes do not get reported on this widely "all the time." To the contrary, the coverage here is worldwide and quite extraordinary for a woman athlete. People can and often do pass WP:GNG based on coverage that develops at the time of death -- it is a natural time to summarize and report on the person's life accomplishments. I've not previously seen editors try to use the "one-event" guideline to exclude obituary coverage. That's not consistent with my understanding. The "one-event" guideline applies to someone who has briefly received coverage of a single event in their lives. Here, coverage that follows the end of a person's life, and delves into their life's accomplishments (in this case a long athletic career), is quite different. Moreover, the rule you quote refers to "low-profile individuals" and professional athletes are the antithesis of low-profile individuals. Cbl62 (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These aren't independent, in-depth obituaries, they are primary news reports on someone's sudden untimely death that include some details about her athletic career. We should not be evaluating notability based on what we think a normal amount of coverage "for a woman athlete" is, because this is not coverage of an athlete's accomplishments, it's coverage of a 27-year-old's mysterious and sudden death that repeats the exact same facts about her career as found in her club's press releases/AP: SUFC player since 2019, marketing executive for SUFC, reached the milestone of 100 appearances for SUFC, named vice-captain last month, longest-serving player in current squad, former youth player, list of former clubs, quotes from Stephen Bettis. These are not intellectually independent sources.
And who says a pro athlete is automatically high-profile? JoelleJay (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The cited sources cover the tragic circumstances of her death and also cover her life and career in sufficient depth to constitute SIGCOV (I thought you had conceded that point above). The guideline's usage of "low profile" is derived from defamation and right of privacy/publicity laws wherein the law gives lesser protections to public figures. Under those bodies of law, it's pretty clear that someone who pursues a 12-year career as a professional athlete, performing their job in front of crowds of spectators, and who is also a "marketing executive" for the club, has not chosen a "low profile" lifestyle. Cbl62 (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not consider the coverage of her career to be SIGCOV, I was only stating that even if it was SIGCOV it would not pass our requirement for SUSTAINED coverage. And anyway the material about her career in these sources does not count toward notability because it is churnalized wholly from press releases. These are not independent sources separately researching her career, they are pure derivatives of at best one "independent" source (AP), which is itself almost entirely a repetition of a press release.
Performing in a team sport does not automatically make someone a public figure, but that's also irrelevant because WP:N and NOTNEWS state that all subjects must receive sustained coverage, regardless of how "public" they are. JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) The coverage of her career is SIGCOV. We disagree on that. 2) The very guideline you cited/quoted makes the connection between the need for sustained coverage with the person being low-profile, 3) the BBC, The Times, and the Associated Press are among mankind's most respected sources, not outlets for churnalism. Cbl62 (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. News updates on the circumstances around her death are primary; if they were actually significant secondary independent coverage that would be a justification to create an article on the event "death of Maddy Cusack" instead of a biography, but they also fail NEVENT. The coverage of her career is wholly derivative of the press releases and therefore does not constitute independent secondary coverage regardless of how significant it is.
2. WP:N has no requirement that a subject be low-profile. I mistakenly cited BLP1E instead of SUSTAINED, but anyway BLP1E doesn't mean living* people of sufficiently high profile are the sole exceptions to our requirement that all subjects receive sustained attention. It is just applied as another means of protection for random people who receive coverage for some event.
3. Of course BBC and The Times can engage in churnalism. It would be slightly different if these news articles were actually going into significant, independent biographical detail, but they are not. They are regurgitating the same set of facts that were included in the press releases[28][29] and/or AP. The BBC news pieces are reporting an update on her inquest and a tribute paid toward her. What biographical info on her career do they provide outside the context of her death?

Cusack had been at the club since 2019 and became the first player to reach 100 appearances for the women's team last season. She also worked as a marketing executive at the Women's Championship club, who said they were "devastated" by her death. ... Cusack also played for Birmingham, Aston Villa and Nottingham Forest before joining the Blades.

[30]

Midfielder Cusack - the first player to reach 100 appearances for the club's women's team last season - died last week aged 27. ... Cusack - who had been at the club since 2019 and also worked in the club's marketing department ...

[31]
The Times piece has these details:

The Sheffield United midfielder Maddy Cusack has died at the age of 27, the club have announced.
Cusack, named vice-captain last month, had just started her sixth season with the Yorkshire club in the Women’s Championship and was the longest-serving player in their squad. ... Cusack joined Sheffield United halfway through their first campaign in the women’s second tier in January 2019 and last season became the first woman to reach 100 appearances for the club. ... The former England youth international signed a new contract extension in July.

[32]
So again, where is the independent biographical coverage that demonstrates she is notable for her athletic career and not her death? JoelleJay (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which news reports contain encyclopedic info on her career background that goes significantly beyond what is contained here:
SUFC:

Sheffield United Football Club is devastated to report the sad news of the passing of Maddy Cusack.

Maddy, a women's team player since 2019 and marketing executive for the Football Club, passed away on Wednesday.

A respected player, Maddy, 27, last season reached the milestone of 100 appearances for Sheffield United Women. Additionally, she was a valued colleague in the offices at Bramall Lane, moving over from the Sheffield United Community Foundation to the Club in 2021 to help market all areas of the Blades.

Stephen Bettis, United's chief executive officer, commented: "This is heartbreaking news for everyone at Bramall Lane. Maddy had a unique position of being part of a number of teams at Sheffield United and was popular with everyone that she came into contact with. Her personality and professionalism made her a credit to her family - she will be sadly missed. Whilst taking in the news and moving forward, the Club will offer as much support as possible to Maddy's family, friends and colleagues."

Discussions over suitable tributes and celebrating Maddy's life will continue privately. The Club and Maddy's family would appreciate a period of privacy and will not comment further at this sad time.

AP:

Maddy Cusack, a midfielder for the Sheffield United women’s team, has died at the age of 27, the club said Thursday.

The team didn’t disclose any details about Cusack’s death. She was named as United’s vice-captain last month and had just started her sixth season with the team in the second-tier Women’s Championship, making her the longest-serving player in the current squad.

“Sheffield United Football Club is devastated to report the sad news of the passing of Maddy Cusack,” the club said. “Maddy, a women’s team player since 2019 and marketing executive for the football club, passed away on Wednesday.”

Cusack, a former England youth international, signed a contract extension with the club in July.

“This is heartbreaking news for everyone at Bramall Lane,” chief executive Stephen Bettis said. “Maddy had a unique position of being part of a number of teams at Sheffield United and was popular with everyone that she came into contact with.

“Her personality and professionalism made her a credit to her family — she will be sadly missed.”

JoelleJay (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the SIGCOV presented by Cbl62 and Oaktree b which have more than simple trivial mentions of Ms. Cusack. Passes WP:NBIO, which states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Frank Anchor 17:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The announcements of her death are all derived from an AParticle/press releases, which are where all of the details on her career come from.[33][34][35][36] These news pieces are not intellectually independent of each other and are not independent of the subject. The few articles that provide info beyond that are simply quoting other non-independent sources.[37][38] One report[39] adds a few sentences of trivial non-encyclopedic detail (The greatest shock is generated when taking into account that the footballer had played less than a month ago, on September 3, her last game with the team, starting in the 1-0 home defeat against Sunderland in the Championship . English second division. She was substituted in the 58th minute of the match and since then she had been absent in two more league games, against Blackburn Rovers away and Lewes at home.) The updates covering memorials by her teammates are just primary news.[40]
    WP:NRV: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest,
    WP:NBIO: Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject.
    WP:NOTNEWS: Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion JoelleJay (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What is intellectually independent?
    "are not independent of the subject."
    The subject is the person that article is about, all these articles are independent.
    You are quoting WP:Notnews and even in this small subtract it says "events"
    The enduring notability — we already found sources pre-dating death. Kirill C1 (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources must not be derived from each other or from press releases. Most of the sources are either reprints of the AP piece or churnalized from it and the press release. NOTNEWS applies to all topics, as should be evident by it saying "persons and events". Sources from before death have to also be significant and non-routine, and none of those sources are. JoelleJay (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are plenty of articles about persons which are written mostly via obits, or even only based on obits. Kirill C1 (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is enduring coverage:
    https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11683/12969790/maddy-cusack-police-say-no-suspicious-circumstances-regarding-sheffield-united-women-midfielders-death
    https://www.cnn.com/cnn/2023/09/22/sport/maddy-cusack-death-sheffield-united-spt-intl/index.html Kirill C1 (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After some thought I agree that this is more than the standard routine, there is a saying "Beyond scope" and I feel we have this. This is way past general notability, there might be some mid-term lasting notability but I am sure it will die down after that. I don't see much after a year, but wikipedia is all about cataloging from biographies to paintings. We can always have a new AfD in a year, but as of now, it is doing no harm. Govvy (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Govvy, where is the independent SIGCOV of her? None of the articles so far provide any significant detail beyond regurgitating press releases, which are explicitly discounted from notability. JoelleJay (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Aww, @JoelleJay: There is news and articles with information, thus coverage is available, which is WP:BASIC coverage. So... what I say is true from a certain point of view. Govvy (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't be condescending. NBIO explicitly says People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. ... Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. So where are these articles that are not substantively derived from the press releases/AP? And where is the evidence her notability does not stem from coverage of a single event? JoelleJay (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay: Condescending? Really? How long do you think I've been posting to AfDs in my lifetime? Policies do not need to be explained to me, and frankly I am bemused at times by people who think they can run a lecture. There are a wave of keep votes here, which clearly suggests something. This is a biography and at the same time it is recent news, you're more likely to offend people when posting about someone they care about is NOTNEWS! You need to be very careful now, as the way I see it, you failed to show any sense of honour to my previous post, nor respond in a kind and polite manner. Govvy (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How else should I interpret that "aww" and youtube link? And I'd like to know how you think any of the biographical coverage actually satisfies

    It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information.

    JoelleJay (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We have SIGCOV in at least three of the most respected news sources on our planet: BBC, The Times, and the Associated Press. These institutions are not known for engaging in churnalism. Cbl62 (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Except the only SIGCOV is of the circumstances of her death, which is primary news. The coverage of her background is directly and exclusively churnalized from the press releases and is therefore not eligible for GNG. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information.
    And again, BBC, The Times, and AP absolutely engage in churnalism.[41] Flat Earth News (book) describes research showing 80% of stories in the Times, the Guardian, Independent, Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail were wholly or partially constructed from second-hand material provided by news agencies or public relations firms such as the Press Association.[42] Other research has found Outlets like The Telegraph, The Independent, and even the BBC repurposed up to 97% of their content from press releases in their stories, essentially copying and pasting their way to ad revenue.[43][44] AP has even been automating some of its finance and sports reporting since 2015...[45]
    And all of that is besides the fact that the coverage is 100% in the context of her death and is not sustained whatsoever. JoelleJay (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @Warofdreams here too. The ~7 facts on her background repeated in every one of these stories come directly from the press releases announcing her death: they were curated as her career highlights by the FA/SUFC, not independently dug up and determined to be important by news agencies. JoelleJay (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty thin reed upon which to accuse the BBC and The Times of having engaged in churnalism. That multiple news organizations report the same facts is not evidence that they have done something untoward or unethical or engaged in what you call churnalism. Rather, it is evidence that the facts are the facts. You have no idea the extent of fact-checking and/or independent reporting undertaken by the BBC, The Times, and the Associated Press. For you to leap to the conclusion that each of these preeminent news organizations is simply engaging in unethical practices is rank speculation. If this type of argument were to prevail, then our reliable sourcing standards would be open to attack in every case. There are certain news sources that we can and should trust based on a long history of reliability and reputation for careful fact-checking: BBC and The Times would be at the top of that list. In cases where news organizations simply reprint press releases, an appeal to "churnalism" may be appropriate. But an attempt to neutralize reporting by the world's most respected news organizations, simply because there is an alignment of facts (and because, not surprisingly, the team's statements are a fundamental starting point in any reportage on this story), is several bridges too far. Cbl62 (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian (here) is yet another reliable source, and it has even more biographical information. The biographical facts reported by The Guardian include: (1) Cusack was "a Sheffield United footballer", (2) Cusack "died at the age of 27"; (3) Cusack "played for the women's team since 2019"; (4) Cusack made "more than 100 appearances for the club"; (5) Cusack "also worked for the club as a marketing executive"; (6) "the cause of death has not been disclosed"; (7) Cusack was "part of a number of teams at Sheffield United"; (8) Cusack "was popular with everyone that she came into contact with"; (9) "Cusack was the first player to reach 100 appearances for the club"; (10) Cusack previously worked for Sheffield United Community Foundation until 2021; (11) Cusack had recently "entered her sixth season"; (12) Cusack "also represented England at age-group level"; and (13) Cusack "previously played for Birmingham City". Cbl62 (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The further one digs, the clearer it becomes that the major newspapers have not simply copied and pasted the same seven facts from a press release. There are interviews with various sources and varying degrees of factual background included in the accounts . For example, The Independent (here) reported the following facts: (1) Cusack was "Sheffield United's longest-serving women's player"; (2) Cusack died at the age of 27; (3) Cusack was a midfielder; (4) Cusack "was named vice-captain last month:' (5) Cusack "had just started her sixth season"; (6) Cusack "had made over 100 appearances for the club" and "reached the milestone" in the prior season; (7) Cusack was "a women's team player since 2019"; (8) Cusack was also a "marketing executive for the Football Club"; (9) Cusack moved over from Sheffield United Community Foundation to the club's offices at Brmall Lane in 2921; (10) Cusack helped market all areas of the Blades football team; (11) "Cusack joined the Blades halfway through their first campaign" in January 2019; (12) Cusack was a "fomer England youth itnernational" player; and (13) Cusack "had signed a new contract extension with the Blades in July". Cbl62 (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dude. First of all, churnalism isn't "unethical", it's a widespread practice in journalism that, as the research I cited states, is employed by The Times, the BBC, The Guardian, basically everywhere. You think any of these newspapers is individually instructing reporters to research Cusack's career in-depth? No, this is a low-importance human-interest news piece so all their original reporting is limited to the primary developments surrounding her death. These aren't obituaries.
Second: literally every single one of those facts comes from the press releases. Not a single item is fresh. They even use the exact same wording! Rehashing the info from contemporaneous press releases is the definition of churnalism and is explicitly discounted from GNG.
Third: even if it wasn't derived from PR, this material would constitute one source. None of the papers are providing any additional biographical info whatsoever, let alone SIGCOV, so it doesn't even meet GNG anyway.
Fourth: Even if coverage met GNG it would not constitute SUSTAINED attention. The only reason anyone is mentioning her sports career at all is due to one event, and the coverage is all inextricably linked to that event. It would be different if there was some sort of retrospective where the focus wasn't on the circumstances of her death, but that is not the case. JoelleJay (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Dude"? What did I do to earn the title? As a Lebowski fan, I'm honored. Anyway, you're over-expansive assertion of churnalism, and your bald assertion that no fact-checking was done, is pure speculation and is undercut by the strong reputation for fact-checking by these preeminent sources. It's also undercut by the fact that each of the articles is presenting different subsets of fact in different ways. They are not simply reprinting a press release. The fact that "the facts are the facts" does not turn these reliable sources into unreliable (or unethical) churnalism factories. Cbl62 (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage is coverage that is enough for article.
We can write a fairly long article on her, coverage is significant. Kirill C1 (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although the large majority of press coverage is in response to her death, it covers her career. We should distinguish between coverage which arises solely because someone dies in a notable way - which could be one event - and coverage following someone's death which covers their notable life, as the sources cited do. Warofdreams talk 00:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly passes GNG even if most of the coverage is post-mortem.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a lot of posthumous coverage of her football career but I also found news stories going back to 2020:
Maddy Cusack confident Neil Redfearn can take Sheffield United Women in FA Women’s Superleague (The Yorkshire Post, Sept 2020)
Maddy Cusack agrees new deal with Sheffield United Women (The Star, June 2021)
Maddy Cusack: Long-serving Sheffield United midfielder commits to club for another season (The Star, May 2022) Ackatsis (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of sentences specifically on Cusack does not pass GNG. Contract signings is routine coverage. If it wasn't then every footballer who signs a couple of contracts would be entitled to a Wiki article.Dougal18 (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there would not be any discussion, if this would be a male player. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Marcus Cyron. --Marbe166 (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Think enough time has passed that there is significant coverage about her unfortunate passing. Though I think her footballing career also passes GNG. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 01:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agreed with above arguments, lots of coverage. I note the article also references news coverage during her career. ResonantDistortion 12:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriella Baldacchino (Actress)[edit]

Gabriella Baldacchino (Actress) (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 sourcing in this article is unusually poor and it has consequently made its way to and from draft, plonked straight back into mainspace with a distinct whiff of socks and UPE accompanying it. Fails WP:GNG; WP:NACTOR and even AGF is tested by the likelihood of UPE. The line "Gabriella Baldacchino was born on November 20, 2001, to her parents." is, however, a classic... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TBF, if you're going to be born, those are the people to be born to... --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Proto-Indo-European mythology#Smith god. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-European smith god[edit]

Indo-European smith god (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 page boldly asserts proto indo-europeans had a smith god in their pantheon, but this goes well beyond the sources. The first source cited actually says, "The argument for a single mythical prototype is not strong." (West, 2007:156). As the page notes, there are many smith gods in the daughter linguistically-defined groups that speak indo-european languages, but it failed to mention what the sources say, that smiths are also found in most non indo-european cultures too (I have added that now). One major issue that this page fails to grapple with is that proto-indoeuropean culture is a proto culture that groups descend from, going back well before the iron age, and in some cases to before the bronze age (copper age). It is not clear that a smith god associated with iron (the magic of removing metal from a rock in very high heat) would be in any way related to a god of bronze or copper working. The fact that there is no commonality of gods in daughter cultures lends strength to this reasoning. Yet if there were a god, there is almost nothing that can be said about it, and so a wikipedia page is not possible. This is already fully covered in [46] and I am not convinced a redirect is required as it doesn't seem like a plausible search term - but I don't object to redirect if others feel it is. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the proposed target. Not implausible as a search term IMO and it leaves the article history intact in case there is anything useful to merge. (Edit: I considered a rename to something like "Indo European smith god hypothesis" but it does not seem to be notable even as a hypothesis/theory and there is very little info on Google Scholar). (t · c) buidhe 08:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Buidhe. Srnec (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese in Lithuania[edit]

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

There's no sign that this group (of 87 people in 2022) meets WP:GNG. The article is padded out with information on trade between the two countries, NATO, etc., presumably to make up for the lack of in-depth coverage of the topic in reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William John Corbet[edit]

William John Corbet (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. Escaping the German occupation of Guernsey in the Second World War is not especially notable and does not make him, as his article claims, a "World War II hero". Clarityfiend (talk) 10:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chinese rock#Rock in China. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rock in China[edit]

Rock in China (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 defunct wiki website, citing a few low-reliability sources in reception, all very poorly formatted and even more poorly referenced (two footnotes, both to the website or affiliates). The only source that seems to offer a veneer of hope here is [47] (Beijing Review) although it is about the website creator and mentions the website in passing, failing WP:SIGCOV. No zh or other interwiki. I fear for now this fails WP:GNG. Can anyone dig sources (in Chinese, perhaps) to rescue this? My BEFORE is not helpful, generic name of the website is not helping either. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Barhouma[edit]

Mohammed Barhouma (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 sourcing is pretty terrible here, consisting of personal bios on a handful of websites that the subject has worked for. The page reads like a pretty classic curriculum vitae, and was worse before I trimmed the more gratuitous elements. On the face of it, the case for notability is poor to non-existent, and a search for the subject in English language sources is not promising. Better results may exist in an Arabic search, but there aren't currently any other sources on the Arabic version of the page either. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Jordan. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an Arabic search throws up lots of author profiles on the sites of institutions he’s worked for/spoken at, interviews by him and pieces he’s authored, but zero in depth coverage in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 06:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) WJ94 (talk) 12:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DD Osama[edit]

DD Osama (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 rapper, sources don't come even close to meeting WP:GNG, and a search finds nothing better. With one mixtape under their belt, no chance of meeting WP:MUSICBIO either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with the points mentioned above that show the subject has had multiple reliable sources cover his music. The subject is also still only 16 years old and is already signed to a major record label. He meets Criteria 1 of WP:MUSICBIO and unless he stops making music, he will likely pass Criteria 3 and 5 of WP:MUSICBIO too. Hiphopsavedmylife (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was ‎ Withdrawn by nominator. Fram (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Battagram cable car incident[edit]

2023 Battagram cable car incident (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 indication of WP:SUSTAINED notability, a typical WP:NOTNEWS incident with lots of coverage when it happens as it is spectacular. Fram (talk) 08:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at the very least, redirect to Aerial tramway#List of accidents. There's an analysis by Reuters published 6 days after the incident [51] and sustained coverage 5 days after that [52], as well as this on Sep 5th [53], which clearly shows at least some form of sustained coverage after the initial news cycle passed. S5A-0043Talk 08:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per S5A-0043, appears to indeed be sustained coverage. Garuda3 (talk) 10:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sustained coverage in media outlets all over the world. Clearly meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to major billing in global media, easily meeting WP:EVENTCRIT #2. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 13:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Howard Van Pelt[edit]

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

Lack of notability. This is one of a group created by the same author and listed at Template talk:List of Sea Captains and Pilots. As was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles O. Beebe, being a maritime pilot does not in and of itself confer notability on these people. These articles are those where this is the only apparent claim to notability. Melcous (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages where the only claim to notability made is being a maritime pilot in the same period/location:

  1. :James Howard Van Pelt (the one in title)
  2. :John Joseph Canvin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  3. :Howard Van Pelt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  4. :William C. Fowler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  5. :James Llewellyn Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  6. :James M. Dolliver (pilot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  7. :Joseph W. Colby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  8. :Franklin B. Wellock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Comment I appended numbers into the list above originally created by Melcous. Please indicate which ones should be deleted, or which one(s) should not be. Graywalls (talk) 07:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The sourcing consists or two Family Search faux references, a report that the pilot fell of the pilot ladder and died, remarkably brief obits suggesting lack of notability by their brevity and a burial notice. There is a book, too. Tenuous in the extreme. Fails WP:V a major tenet of Wikipedia, fails WP:BIO. This comment applies to James Howard van Pelt. I will check the others. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also delete: John Joseph Canvin, Howard Van Pelt, William C. Fowler, James Llewellyn Smith, James M. Dolliver (pilot), Joseph W. Colby, Franklin B. Wellock. Their sourcing is similar to that for James Howard Van Pelt, also inadequate. Nothing that could be considered to be significant coverage, peppered with Ancestry and Family Search faux references. For the avoidance of doubt, delete all as WP:ROTM maritime pilots, doing their hazardous jobs, sometimes dying while performing their roles. Dying on the job is not qualification for notability. I have spent time checking the references for each article. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: to the closer of this discussion: It is not my intent to appear to have offered more than one !vote. My opinion should be read as one delete opinion per article nominated. It stands for each article individually, though they are nominated as a batch. I had not seen the other nominations when offering my first opinion. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment how do you feel about Frank P. Van Pelt and Augustus Van Pelt I just noticed them while peeling the onion. I don't know if those are part of the walled garden series. Graywalls (talk) 10:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: they certainly could be added in here if others think they should. I tried to start with those from the list that didn't have any other claims to notability in them, no matter how weak. I still think almost all on the list should eventually end up going through this process, I just wasn't sure about doing too many in one AfD. Melcous (talk) 12:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Graywalls, @Melcous May I suggest this AfD has all it ought to have in it at present? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: my intention was to keep this manageable, as per @Liz:'s comment below that people need to look at and comment on all the articles that are bundled. I would imagine another group could be done together where there are claims about awards that the editor has suggested make them notable (I do not believe they do); and some probably do need to be looked at individually. But this is the first time I have done a bundled AfD, so I'm happy for someone more experienced to make the call.Melcous (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and delete all these articles on non-notable pilots. It's not enough that they were born, lived, had a job and died. Sandy Hook pilots do not have automatic inherent notability. There are hundreds of thousands of people like this that may have had an obit about them, this does not make them notable. That there is erroneous sourcing is troubling but not surprising. These articles are part of a walled garden. Netherzone (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand by my !vote to d*lete all eight of these articles on non-notable boat pilots in a small geographic region. They are run-of-the-mill workers who were simply doing their jobs, no more or less notable than a run-of-the-mill train conductor. These individuals are WP:MILL, and fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO. People who simply live, conduct the duties of their job or profession and die do not have inherent notability, even if they had a long career as a boat pilot.
    I don't get the "what about Anton Hansch" comment below. That comparison has no merit whatsoever, firstly Hansch was an artist not a boat pilot, and secondly, a simple search reveals that Hansch is in multiple permanent collections of notable museums including the Kunsthistorisches Museum[54], [55], [56] the Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest [57]; the Salzberg Museum [58], among others thus clearly is a notable artist. That Anton Hensch is not a notable boat pilot (or was even a boat pilot at all) has no bearing on this AfD nor on the notablity or lack thereof of these Sandy Hook and Boston pilots. Please explain, as I am not following the "what about X" argument or train of thought at all. Netherzone (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing terribly out of the ordinary for this person that I can see. Article is basically a life summary, no indication why he was more important than any other individual in his position. Sourcing I can find is largely in legislative texts. Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b Does your comment extend to all the bundled articles, please? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 05:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Only for the one in the title of the nomination. I haven't reviewed the validity of the rest of them. Oaktree b (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Satisfies the WP:BASIC guidelines by being supported by numerous reliable published sources, including secondary sources that exhibit intellectual independence from one another and independence from the subject matter. Let's ensure the enduring recognition of the notable 19th-century Sandy Hook pilots in our encyclopedia! Preserving their legacy is essential for any comprehensive record." Greg Henderson (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It appears that you have grouped the Sandy Hook pilots together in a single AfD discussion. William C. Fowler stands out as notably and more distinguished, given that a secondary source directly references him on pages 42-43. Is it possible to retain this specific pilot's entry? Greg Henderson (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are 8 articles listed here for consideration, please do not just comment on the first article, the one in the title. If you disagree that these articles should be bundled, please state that as well. Liz Read! Talk! 03:05, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think they should be bundled. The William C. Fowler is a good example. BTW, there are other better candidates for AfD here: Anton Hansch. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A landscape painter. How does this even remotely relate to the topic, which is non-notable sea captains? Graywalls (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The point here is I don't think they should be bundled. As an aside, I mentioned that there are other people (not pilots necessarily) that have much fewer citations, than these 19th century pilots that have many more citations. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Greghenderson2006 If you feel it is worthy of being deleted, propose it for a deletion process. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a useful argument here. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot. Having looked at all of the articles not a single individual is notable. They all consist of was born, was a pilot, sailed on this boat, did some routine pilotage duties and died. Routine run of the mill stuff of no encyclopedic significance. Lyndaship (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No encyclopedic significance? Don't you think someone doing research about Sandy Hook pilots would want to know who they were, their boats, and the significance of how these pilots guided oceangoing vessels, passenger liners, freighters, and tankers in and out of the New York harbor? Greg Henderson (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All. It is clear considerable amount of WP:BEFORE work went into this AfD and the fruit of the work is jotted down into Template talk:List of Sea Captains and Pilots to sort out notable ones from non-notable ones. Death notices are generally submitted to newspapers by family members. The articles nominated for deletion in this AfD essentially chronicle common life that they were born, became a pilot/captain, did their typical duties, married one or more times, had children, and died. Graywalls (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese in Bosnia and Herzegovina[edit]

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

There's no sign that this likely very small group meets WP:GNG. The article is padded out with information on trade and other relations between the two countries, presumably to make up for the lack of in-depth coverage of the topic in reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Portugal. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Template style article creation along with others (Portuguese in xxx) with very little substantive content to justify the article. Possibly redirects to Portuguese xxx relations but quite probably ultimately not worth the effort. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per arguments made at all the other "Portuguese in wherever articles". AryKun (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even the article admits that we know nothing about this community or even whether it exists or not. The article spends most of the time talking about the trade between the two countries, which barely exists, and the soldiers of Portuguese nationality that served in the Bosnian War, which is at best a tangential topic. There is no actual discussion from WP:RS about Portuguese people living in Bosnia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese in North Macedonia[edit]

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

There's no sign that this group (of 18 people in 2021) meets WP:GNG, even if the article tells us that "It is worth noting that 13 people held both Portuguese and Macedonian citizenship" (!). The article is padded out with information on trade between the two countries, NATO, etc., presumably to make up for the lack of in-depth coverage of the topic in reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese in Montenegro[edit]

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

There's no sign that this group (of potentially only four people in 2014) meets WP:GNG. The article is padded out with information on trade between the two countries, NATO, etc., presumably to make up for the lack of in-depth coverage of the topic in reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Montenegro, and Portugal. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    delete Agree with the nominator that the very-recent, almost non-existent community is not notable. Further, the sourcing is almost all primary and the one secondary source I found does not seem to support the article topic in any way.
    The creator of this article is @Miguel01Cruzado who appears to be devoted to promoting claims of Portuguese heritage. I've called their edits out in the past for lacking reliable sourcing but it felt like a losing battle. Oblivy (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Template style article creation along with others (Portuguese in xxx) with very little substantive content to justify the article. Possibly redirects to Portuguese xxx relations but quite probably ultimately not worth the effort. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is no evidence that this community meets WP:GNG as a stand-alone topic. As others have said, the article is mostly based on tangential information and contains almost no information about the Portuguese community living in Montenegro, presumably because little to no info actually exists. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per arguments made at all the other "Portuguese in wherever articles". AryKun (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Cycling at the 1948 Summer Olympics – Men's sprint. Liz Read! Talk! 06:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rusi Mulla Feroze[edit]

Rusi Mulla Feroze (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:SPORTSCRIT #5, violates WP:NOTDATABASE. BilledMammal (talk) 06:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese in Albania[edit]

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

"There were 8 Portuguese citizens residing in Albania in 2019" says this article and that, milords, is where I rest my case. Despite quite a lot of fancy window dressing, a Wikipedia article dedicated to the lives of eight worthy people is something I think we should consider as worthy of deletion as it contains virtually no salient content. Just, just possibly a redirect to Albania-Portugal relations? Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's unfortunate because this is a well-written article with sources, but unless the 8 Portuguese Albanians are notable as a group (which I somehow doubt), the article is a bunch of figures tied together by WP:OR. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 05:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DIRT (band)[edit]

DIRT (band) (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 both WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Tagged over 3 years ago with no improvement (!make that 13 years ago). Defunct band, unlikely to generate in-depth third-party coverage in the future. JFHJr (㊟) 23:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aintabli (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE per nom. fails WP:BAND cannot find any mentions except for a few blogs. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Leslie (footballer)[edit]

Mark Leslie (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)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aintabli (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – As a former professional footballer who played senior international matches for Belize, he is definitely noteable. However, there is a lack of sigcov so the article will need sources that provide coverage. Ping me if sources are found and I'll change vote. Idiosincrático (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 National Indemnity Company. Liz Read! Talk! 04:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Berkshire Hathaway GUARD Insurance Companies[edit]

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

Mostly primary sourced article which seems more like a press release. Appears to have been written by a handful of IP's. As an AtD, could be stubbed down and/or merged into a larger Berkshire article. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:58, 15 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! 04:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to National Indemnity Company. The infobox is currently wrong, this subject is a subsidiary and not a parent of National Indemnity. GUARD is a fairly small division within Berkshire overall. - Indefensible (talk) 05:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment: I have removed the dubiously sourced claims and puffery, as well as the tags highlighting these problems. It remains to be seen whether this company is worthy of an article in its own right. I agree w/ the above editor who recommended a merge to the parent company. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus here to Keep this article but also a discussion regarding a possible rename should begin on the article talk page as this seemed to be a major point of contention on this article. Liz Read! Talk! 04:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parental rights movement[edit]

Parental rights movement (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)

Most of the sources do not refer to a "parental rights movement", although some refer to cited concerns about "parental rights". The page simply seems redundant given these existing pages:

Delete/merge? Zenomonoz (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Sexuality and gender. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is already covered in 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States in much greater context and is a WP:POVFORK, it doesn’t need this standalone page as the issue is already sufficiently covered there as well as the separate Don't Say Gay article, so delete per WP:NOPAGE. Raladic (talk) 04:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This !vote doesn't account for the fact that this is also a thing in Canada. That simple fact makes this not a POVFORK. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It still is a fork off from LGBT grooming conspiracy theory which is a further detail breakout about that section, which is linked in the article I referenced. So just because one of four articles that the nominator listed is more specifically about the US, doesn't negate the point that tbe topic is in fact already covered at great lengths in the others. Raladic (talk) 05:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By this logic, we should be creating a new article--like the don't say gay bill article-- for each instance of this occurrence for all of the mentioned provinces. MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was expecting this to be a delete but the Google News search was enough to persuade me otherwise. This does seem to be a thing and this does seem to be what people are calling it. The Google Scholar links complicate things a bit as some of the hits there show the term going back to the late 1990s. The earlier uses seem to be far less explicitly anti-LGBT but I assume that there is at least some continuity here and the rhetoric, initially couched in euphemisms, has gradually becoming more and more "mask off" as anti-LGBT and anti-intellectual sentiment has become normalised. I think that there is probably more to this topic than the article covers rather than less and that speaks against a merge, particularly if this movement is not exclusively anti-LGBT. If it seeks to limit access to sex education more generally then that would make the suggested merge targets untenable. --DanielRigal (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States and it's sub article LGBT grooming conspiracy theory already covers the topic, as well as the related policies such as book bans in the greater context though, which is an important point of WP:NOPAGE as many of the current anti-LGBT movements by the far-right have to been seen as a whole which this sub-topic cannot explain sufficiently. Raladic (talk) 04:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment "anti-LGBT and anti-intellectual sentiment has become normalised" This political movement seems to be specifically transphobic, rather than anti-LGBT. And anti-intellectualism has a long history in the United States, as pointed by its main article. "John Traphagan of the University of Texas attributes this to a culture of anti-intellectualism, noting that nerds and other intellectuals are often stigmatized in American schools and popular culture. At universities, student anti-intellectualism has resulted in the social acceptability of cheating on schoolwork, especially in the business schools, a manifestation of ethically expedient cognitive dissonance rather than of academic critical thinking." Dimadick (talk) 07:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        In which case the article should be broadened and maybe renamed into 2020s anti-intellectual movement as a more neutral term, rather than WP:WHITEWASHing a political term that far-right conservatives are trying to normalize, which can instead redirect to the section there. This is simular to the broader article about the Origins of the American Civil War, which discussed the fact that the wrongful argument of States rights was tried to be used, but in actuality was a disguise - this here seems like a similar case of disguising the topic of suppressing minorities under the guise of another "rights" pretense, which should be discussed as part of the wider topic. Raladic (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and United States of America. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - covered by CBC News [59] [60] as a movement that exists in Canada. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is already some reference about this in LGBT grooming conspiracy theory from 2022, before this was copied to Canada with reference to an article ([61]) that warned about exactly that, which can be further expanded over there. Again, it doesn't require this standalone duplicate article. Raladic (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge to Anti-gender movement per below comment ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Google Scholar suggests that this somewhat of an underground movement that pre-dates the recent American political events. Also, this is not necessarily just a North American phenomenon. There have been similar activist groups in other countries for years. The article needs a more global view, not deletion. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Most of the articles in Google Scholar do not refer to LGBT issues at all. For example, here. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - despite what others have mentioned, the suggestion WP:ATD-M doesn't apply here, this is a growing article that is likely to continue to be expanded. MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, I think it would be better if it was merged into the 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States page and fear that if this has its own page, it will only promote misinformation, apart from being unnecessary. Historyday01 (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree, I do not think the sections on Canada should be merged into an article about a movement in the United States MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC) Further, the potential for misinformation is not a good reason to prevent WP:COMMONNAME from taking precedence here. If people are searching for parental rights then this should come up in the search results and explain how it is an anti-trans conservative movement. It's clear that's what people are using, by the aforementioned Google News search. MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename if kept This is a blantantly anti-LGBT movement disguised as as parental rights, and using this name makes it a POV fork of the above articles, to which it may also be merged. The article is not explicit enough that the name is propaganda. Parental rights to do what? To harass LBGT youth and restrict their education and healthcare. Reminds me of saying the civil war was about states' rights without mentioning what was the right for the state to do. I don't think that because it has spread to Canada means it needs to be a standalone article and a merge may still be appropriate; perhaps 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States needs a complimentary 2020s anti-LGBT movement in Canada?Reywas92Talk 13:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This does intrigue me, however we would need a redirect from parental rights, but we could follow the same model as Pro-Life. It is clear that what you've summarised is what conservative commentators are trying to accomplish with this being a dog-whistle, so I do think it's valuable to include the language because that's what's being used in the news and sources. MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand Reywas92's frustration but I can't agree with this argument for renaming. First up, we have to call things by what they are actually called, per WP:COMMONNAME, even when those names are blatant misnomers. Secondly, we want to help our readers to find the right article as easily as possible. If they hear somebody talking about the "parental rights movement", think it sounds confusing, and decide to look it up on Wikipedia then we want them to find the information they want either in the place that they expect to find it or redirected from there. It is not for us to impose our own name on it. Of course, it would be different if there already was a more neutral alternative name or term, as with "Pro-Life" redirecting to Anti-abortion movements. I think that is what people are thinking when they argue for folding this into those other articles. It is an arguable point but I don't think they map exactly enough for this to be a good idea. Particularly if it is true that this movement is not exclusively anti-LGBT and that is has roots going back a few decades, this would seem to be separate from, although unarguably related to, those other topics. So, unless there is a better name that actually satisfies WP:COMMONNAME, I think we are stuck with the current name. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually now reading the google scholar link that Zenomonoz linked further up about Parental Rights movement from 2005 - it looks like this was a totally different and entirely unrelated issue that has absolutely no overlap with the current dogwhistle use of the term in current politics, which means we are entering ambiguous article title and content territory, plus then we should examine whether there is any link really, or just a reuse of the same term that was used and in that case, it does still look like the modern discourse is entirely anti-LGBT.
So this article then has to be completely re-written to talk about that movement from 2005 and then the modern re-use of the term, but for entirely different grounds if it wants to discuss the term and not just current events. Raladic (talk) 05:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This modern movement is not just in the United States, and it's not just anti-LGBTQ. A merge to any of the pages mentioned above would be inapposite. The article should be expanded to cover the ways in which parental rights advocates are seeking to restrict teaching in schools about racism, white supremacy, and sexism. A note to those looking for more sources: though our titles are drawing a distinction between the Parents' rights movement, focused on parental custody, and this article, focused on schools, many sources about the school-related movement are using the term "parents' rights". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've expanded the article to add more on the ways in which the parental rights movement has pushed changes that have nothing to do with anti-LGBTQ sentiment. There is much more to be added, but the article already now talks about anti-sex-ed, anti-DEI, anti-"CRT" (the boogeyman CRT, not the real deal), and anti-antiracist work by those who say they are fighting for "parental rights" or "parents' rights".
    I don't think supporters of a merge have grappled enough with how distinct this topic is from the anti-LGBTQ movements. To frame it in WP:MERGE terms, a merge is inappropriate because "The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States . This should NOT be its own page. I'm not sure why so many other people on here are voting to keep. Its dispiriting.Historyday01 (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Where should the content about Canada be placed? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It can be folded in, since the discourse in Canada is a copycat from the US; if need be, the article title could be renamed to be more broad, or a separate article on Canada could’ve started.
    I would also refer you to WP:WHATABOUT as you keep bringing up Canada as a reason against anyone who suggested a merge, it is not a valid reason to prevent a merge, instead we find a consensus to roll it into the article there or make a separate article for it. Raladic (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is either a misrepresentation of OTHERSTUFF, an essay which I have referred many other users to before, or of my comments. I am not saying "this article should be kept because article X exists." I am saying, "this article contains X cited content on a discrete subject, therefore a merge is inappropriate per WP:NOMERGE." I'll also go further and say that the improvements made to the article over the last day have demonstrated that this topic passes GNG on its own, supporting the NOMERGE argument. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't really a policy based response. Also remember to WP:Assume good faith and WP:Be kind before commenting that you call peoples judgements "dispiriting" Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France and Ireland. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm sufficiently convinced this is a separate (though arguably related) topic to 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States and the rest of the articles mentioned by nominator. 3 reasons for this: a) the article has a distinct focus on a notable international political phenomenon of parents pushing for what they deem 'parental rights', which is separate from any broader anti-LGBT movement in the United States. b) Said phenomenon is labelled and discussed as a distinct movement by reliable news and sources. c) it exists outside of the US and this is supported by good sources - I would say the international coverage needs to be expanded but deleting this article would only further the US-centric bias. I'm not convinced by those above who say that international occurrences of the movement are simply imitating the US, as this doesn't seem to be supported by sources and indeed reflects a US-bias itself.Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 07:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Something I had not realised earlier, is that this article has only been in mainspace existence for a week. We cannot possibly make a fair judgement about the notability of a topic based on an article that is still under construction and by no means a complete covering of the topic. I strongly encourage all editors to do some off wiki research and read some sources before they make calls such as This is already covered in 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States in much greater context.Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, I think the scope would need to be expanded because "parental rights" is deemed to apply to many things other than children being trans. I don't think that the specific anti-trans parent movement should exist separate from other pages about anti-trans movements because I doubt that is actually a separate topic, and risks becoming a POVFORK. (t · c) buidhe 14:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe This is similar to what was said above (it's not just anti-LGBTQ. A merge to any of the pages mentioned above would be inapposite. The article should be expanded to cover the ways in which parental rights advocates are seeking to restrict teaching in schools about racism, white supremacy, and sexism) and I agree. The page just needs time to be expanded and improved, it's too soon for a deletion on what is a promising start to an article about a notable topic. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Another article that wasn't pointed out before that I think this article is actually much more of a POVFORK/WP:WHITEWASH of is Anti-gender movement. A lot of what this article is currently trying to convey either is or can be covered in that article. I have adjusted my vote and struck comments accordingly as that article is not regional in scope. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is indeed a good find and is already covering the specific essence that the current article is covering, but Anti-gender movement is already covering it much more broadly, including in timeline and how that term as used there also was used much more broadly.
    I support your suggestion for a merge to Anti-gender movement (and subsequent redirect) with a subsection added there for the US/Canada "Parental Right" (which are really a whitewash term used to mask their anti-gender movement as outlined in that article. Raladic (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convinced they are talking about the same thing. The anti-gender movement article has literally no results for "parents" or "Parental rights" and only has minor discussion of schools at all. Instead the anti-gender movement seems to be about an intellectual/moral dispute focusing on a perceived threat of gender ideology and its influence on (non-school) government instutions.
    I can see how they might seem related, and indeed may well be related, but for us to claim that the two movements are in fact the same thing without any sources linking the two would be a classic example of WP:SYNTH. Strongly object to this proposed merge. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 07:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I found one more article that has topic overlap with the article here - Transgender genocide which in the United States section calls out with some references to scholars including a report by Yale School of Medicine and WPATH that have called out that some of the current "movements for rights" which are really Healthcare bans are just veiled acts amounting to Genocide "Anti-transgender health care legislation is not about protections for children but about eliminating transgender persons on a micro and macro scale." - this just further highlights the continued attempts to WP:WHITEWASH this under the pretense of a movement, but we should not give it more legitacy, but rather consider redirect into one of the many relevant articles cited in this Afd that do call it out for what it is. Raladic (talk) 05:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just think it's essential to note that WP:WHITEWASH is about editors on Wikipedia trying to whitewash events, it is most certainly not an instruction to go against WP:COMMONNAME or reliable sources so that we [do] not give it more legitacy.Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case it is far right politicians trying to whitewash a term to hide the true agenda, this may actually be something that may require a broader RfC - when should we deviate from WP:COMMONNAME when it may appear to give legitimacy to active harm WP:ADVOCACY, especially when like in this case it may cause active harm that will lead to people losing access to life saving Healthcare as documented by the professional medical community, so I think WP:IGNOREALL could apply here to get past the commonname policy. Raladic (talk) 05:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Raladic, firstly I want to say I'm taking this very seriously and I agree that Wikipedia's first duty is to its readers (including their health and wellbeing).
    That said, I completely fail to see how having this article, as it currently is will will lead to people losing access to life saving Healthcare. You may not like this political movement, you may consider it far right politicians trying to whitewash a term to hide the true agenda but to say that Wikipedia should not cover it in line with RS sources because that may "legitimise" it is (I mean this in the nicest way possible, as I genuinely think you mean well) POV-pushing and censorship, neither of which are allowed on Wikipedia. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 06:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This subject still needs some discussion. We title articles the terms used by reliable souces, whatever that might be. Of course, presence of a stand-alone article on a subject does DOESN'T (big mistake on my part) imply endorsement by Wikipedia. But I still don't see a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename at minimum The current name is a complete misnomer and what the term doesn't mean. Not even getting into the content, the actual article title needs to redirect somewhere more appropriate, not describe this as a gotcha to the actual content. Nate • (chatter) 19:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sympathetic to this view. I think a post-AfD requested move discussion would be worthwhile, though it would be nice to talk through some options at the talk page first. I wasn't looking for this specifically, so I couldn't tell you which sources exactly, but many of those I've encountered have cast doubt on the idea that it's "parents' rights" that are really at the heart of this wave of activism. It's hard to know if there's a common-ish name out there that we could use as a replacement, but I wouldn't be surprised. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to get too into a RM discussion pre-emptively, but I don't think that a name change is correct at this time. While I agree that this isn't really a parent's rights movement and that it's become more of a dog-whistle, I do believe that this is the WP:COMMONNAME, at least for now, and that to the casual reader looking for more information, they are better served to land on this page than a redirect to a more broad article but vague and doesn't address the modern use of the term and the movement it describes. But I agree, that any potential of this would be better suited for a talk page discussion for consensus building. MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If by your admission, this isn't actually a movement but a dog whistle, then the article as it stands has he be rewritten entirely if it were to stand on its own as it does not make this clear at all - it pretends to be a real movement, whereas many medical experts have made it clear that it isn't, which this article doesn't mention at all, but is mentioned on Transgender genocide as I had already pointed out further above.
    It just mentions some description from the Winnipeg Free press and Salon (and it throwing shade at salon in the article itself), so the article is very clearly trying to show a slanted WP:POVFORK instead of accurately showing the strong opposition to the term as it stands.
    The merge should be discussed here and now as a WP:ATD-M as Wikipedia works on consensus and many people have brought up the merge in this Afd, so there is no point to start another disjointed discussion outside of this. Raladic (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    If by your admission, this isn't actually a movement but a dog whistle,

    Sorry, that's not what I meant. It absolutely has become a movement, per the sources on the article. What I've said (albeit, maybe poorly), and as the article has been written, is that the movement isn't about parent's rights as so far as an anti-trans movement. Not to jump ahead in my argument then, but then the situation is to still include the term Parental Rights in the lead.

    then the article as it stands has he be rewritten entirely if it were to stand on its own as it does not make this clear at all - it pretends to be a real movement,

    If that's the case, then I think the proper course of action would be to follow the same style as Pro life and include Parental Rights Movement in the lead after a rename and have a redirect, but I have to say I disagree on your assessment. Parental Rights movement is the common name and people are using it to describe the movement and goals as laid out in the article. I do think the article is clear on the harms done to trans youth; unless you're saying it isn't going far enough—if that's the case, then I find your arguments citing WP:POVFORK are unhelpful, without actually finding issues in the text.
    At this point, I want to take a step back and recognize that we're both involved here because we have the same goal: the betterment of Wikipedia.
    What I'm trying to get at, is that I believe there should be a location on Wikipedia for the term Parental Rights. The reason I made the article is because I noticed an increase in its usage (especially in Canada) and could not find a resource summarizing what the term parental rights meant by those who were using it, and how it was being used. What it is is a common term that people are using, and third parties looking to understand it more (the first thing the general public will do is go to Wikipedia) should be informed that it is an Anti-trans movement—as far as I can tell everyone here agrees with that.
    The problem I have with the aforementioned proposed merges, is that this exact use case—the notification to parents of their children's wishes to use pronouns that differ with their gender assigned at birth—presents (1) a distinct use case by those using the term, that (2) is prolific and sustained and has obviously become the common name, and (3) presents a distinct set of issues that, while related, differ from the other broad articles proposed as potential merges.
    Because of that, I have to say that I think that this is an acceptable version of Wikipedia:Content forking and not specifically WP:POVFORK
    Thanks for hearing me out and not biting; I appreciate your discussion on the matter.
    MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, my point is that the article does not make it clear enough and seems to trivialize some of the issues including the ommission in the entire lead of gender affirming care bans created under the pretense of "Parental rights" and only talks about pronoun use.
    What Republican politicians are doing under the banner of "Parental rights" is restricting access to life saving health care.
    Even the GOP debate just yesterday made it clear that this isn't a new movement but a dog-whistle and is there to restrict access to life saving Healthcare - [62].
    The fact that restricting health care access like this will lead to increase deaths is proven by medical science including this recent study - [63].
    Again, that is why this could be discussed better within the context of which it is happening in one of the other articles, but if it were to stand as its own article, this needs to be much clearer.
    To make it clear that this attack on access happened even before the modern term use, here is an article from Forbes from 2021 on the issue, without the term, but the same issue - [64].
    The point being, it has to be discussed in the greater context and it's effects, which is hard to do in this narrow POVFORK thst is only trying to talk about the modern term.
    We could follow your suggestion of doing the same as Pro life, in which case, merging this content to Anti-gender movement with a bolded alternative term of Parental Rights movement (and this redirecting there) would be fine and it can discuss how the modern term is used within the greater context of the anti-gender movement. Raladic (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: However people feel about this movement, it has received enough independent and significant coverage in secondary sources to warrant an article. WP:POVFORK is a fair argument, but this subject is not exclusively related to the pages mentioned. Any cleanup to remove unrelated content can occur outside of the AfD. Discussion regarding a possible name change can occur on the article talk page. User:Let'srun 03:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This movement seems to be opposed to the teaching of both LBGTQ and Black Lives Matter/racial equity subject matter in public schools. I don’t think there is a possible redirect, especially with the mountain of continuing news about the subject. Thriley (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comment - Avoiding rehashing all of the same arguments as above however, in addition: I think the article has continued to grow since its AfD nomination. MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm assuming this is just a comment, since you've already !voted? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  07:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for not bitting! I'm still getting used to things around here. MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 04:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthouse Trails Publishing[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lighthouse Trails Publishing (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 article seems to lack substance as well as anything that establishes enough notability for it to exist in Wikipedia. There is a lack of good sourcing. When doing an internet search for Lighthouse Trails Publishing, nothing really comes up except for one article by the Christian Post, something from Moody Publishing, and the rest are links to the Lighthouse Trails website. It was nominated for deletion years ago, with it being deleted and then undeleted with those caring for the article saying they would work on improvement. As it stands, there wasn't much improved upon from my perspective. I don't think notability has been established all these years since the article was created. It reads like an advertisement to me. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the above written by Rhododendrites. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your nomination counts as your Delete vote so I've struck your duplicate vote. Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know but now I do! Thanks for the notification. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Again, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article is WP:PROMO, and I don't see any way this article meets WP:NCORP.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is not the first time I've seen this with an "event" type article of this nature, where there is substantial disagreement over whether the references meet the requirements of sustained coverage beyond "breaking news" type material, and at the end of the day no consensus is reached. I might, therefore, encourage some general discussion over that subject and maybe the formulation of some RfC questions on it, to perhaps develop a consensus on what standards the community wishes to set for the inclusion of articles on events, rather than trying to hash out the issue at many individual AfDs. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Philadelphia shooting[edit]

2022 Philadelphia shooting (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 crime. News story in violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Fails WP:SUSTAINED and WP:EFFECT. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Pennsylvania. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It is painfully difficult to find sourcing for one particular mass shooting event in Philly for obvious reasons. That said, I can find nothing that suggests either WP:SUSTAINED or WP:EFFECT for this event, so it fails WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT as WP:NOTNEWS. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another routine shooting, in a city that's become known for such types of crimes. Three people is about what you'd expect from such an event. The last part reads like a memorial, which really isn't suitable for wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Does not meet Sustained,NotNews particularly. Oaktree b (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for very obviously passing WP:GNG with lengthy stories that are directly about the topic in a variety of news outlets, including The New York Times. Thebiguglyalien, from your posts at WP:ITNC I get that you have far-out views on NOTNEWS, but this isn't it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly, current policy does not consider lengthy stories that are directly about the topic in a variety of news outlet as a stand-alone reason for inclusion. You also need to satisfy the rest of WP:NEVENT like WP:EFFECT, WP:PERSISTENCE, etc. This simply does not meet the minimum policy guidelines. Sorry & Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Literally the first bullet point in NEVENT references GNG. And if you really want to go down the persistence road, I've just added a source that looked back on the event one year later. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And here's another. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The ed17, the logical conclusion of your argument is that just about anything ever published in newspapers is worthy of its own article. You can't use primary sources like breaking news to say something meets GNG. If you have an issue with that, then you need to propose a change to WP:GNG, not make a policy-ignoring !vote. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't put words into my mouth. WP:GNG is the north star, and that says "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (emphasis in original). This topic ticks every one of those checkboxes thanks to in-depth coverage from gold-standard reliable sources. WP:SBST gives additional guidance, and there are sources used here that contain coverage which is far more than just routine. (Also, news reports are almost always secondary sources. For something like this, witnesses are the primary sources. See our article on secondary sources and WP:PST.) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You may be interested in WP:RSBREAKING: All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution: see Wikipedia:No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources § Examples of news reports as primary sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A fair point, and I apologize for misremembering and therefore overstating the case for them. It doesn't undercut the main thrust of my argument, as the NYT source in particular is one that takes a step back and looks at the wider picture, and I've shown that there has been additional coverage of the shooting well after it happened. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You may also want to look again at WP:NEVENT, specifically WP:EVENTCRIT. Yes, WP:GNG is mentioned, but as part of a longer sentence, Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline... (emphasis added). I just can't see enduring historical significance in this. Were major news laws enacted specifically due to this event? Did society change in some way that sources attribute to it? I don't see that in sources. The follow-ups articles you cite are not interpretation[s] of primary source material (emphasis in original) as discussed in WP:PRIMARYNEWS as strong sources for notability; they are adding new primary material about how locals feel about the event a year later. If anything, they show that the impact is localised both geographically and over time which argues against a stand-alone article. Also, WP:NOTNEWS really applies strongly here in that most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. There just is not a policy way around the fact that this particular mass-shooting event does not meet the clear policy criteria for inclusion. Sorry & Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Were major news laws enacted specifically due to this event? Did society change in some way that sources attribute to it?" I've never seen that guideline applied with that high of a bar, but if you believe that's the case, I look forward to your nominations of many more of Wikipedia's event articles in the near future. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry that you don't like the policy, Ed, but those are literally the examples used in WP:NEVENT. There are many other ways to reach historical significance. If you can explain to me how this particular mass shooting has the historical significance as mentioned in policy, fine. But I can't see it. With the sources presented, it simply cannot pass the policy threshold. Sorry, Last1in (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll agree to disagree then, particularly with how that policy is actually applied in practice. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG and The ed17 above. Entry needs a bit of work, but I see no reason for deletion at this time. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ed. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. WWGB (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To the (very limited) extent that the coverage of this event falls outside a two-day window, it is WP:ROUTINE. As such, it fails WP:NOTNEWS. --JBL (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This fails WP:NOTNEWS. The claim of WP:SUSTAINED coverage is based on two retrospectives in local news sources, resting on brief comments from local traders/residents on how the street/area has "picked up" after the shooting. This seems to be the only/main impact. There's no analysis of why the shooting happened. The shooting's mentioned in the South Street, Philadelphia article. Maybe merge some of the content into that article as an AtD? Rupples (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per The ed17's reasons. Bzzzing (talk) 04:21, 10 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! 02:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Delete Cant see how a common and generic shooting in America is notable. It fails WP:SUSTAINED and its not really news in the traditional sense, so failing WP:NOTNEWS as well as WP:DEL14. It is just another generic example of the gross and blackest evil that is allowed to exist in America, assuming you believe in that sort of thing. scope_creepTalk 12:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No surprise, another delete vote from Scope creep on any article I've ever worked on... ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we not do this? Scope creep, your editorializing in an AfD discussion is entirely inappropriate. Another Believer, please at least try to respect WP:CIVIL; if you don't want editors to cast delete !votes on articles you work on, check to make sure they meet WP:GNG or WP:EVENTCRIT before you work on them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please, spare me the lecture on civility and direct your comment at the editor who clearly enjoys hounding me, calling me a liar, casting aspersions, and voting delete in any article by me brought to AfD. I've had enough, and I've asked Scope creep to leave me alone many times. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They're has been 470 mass shootings in America this year already. I don' see crime articles as being particularly notable, since each event is so generic in terms of its commonality. The same thing happens everywhere all the time. There is very little that differentiates them and the reporting is exactly the same in almost every instance. Ultimately folk on Wikipedia who create these articles are not interested in the special and unique, instead decide to record the mundane and common. Lastly, I never knew this was an article that Another Believer's wrote. But either way, it is just another generic crime article that is exactly the same as all the others. scope_creepTalk 16:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:scope creep, don't you look at the page history when evaluating articles for AFD? Liz Read! Talk! 01:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No I never look at article contribution history, there is no value in it. The first thing I look at is the article content, then the references, then do a WP:BEFORE to see if there is anything else that can support the article. To repeat the message above. I've no interest in Wikipedia of becoming a directory of shooting's or crimes, which it seems to be starting to do. It puzzles me why folk seem to latch onto individual instances of criminal events, as dreadful as they are, and think that somehow that because they are heavily reported that somehow make them notable. It doesn't. All crimes are heavily reported, even when they are identical. At best it makes them instances of a single type of a crime event, that crimologists don't even look at over historical time, never mind historians of crime and its effects. At the end ,we will end up with reams, 10000's of crime articles that are almost identical in there nature, while the real articles, academic articles that examine crime and history of crime don't get written. Instead its this low-hanging fruit. Its junk really. scope_creepTalk 06:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which is the purpose of WP:NEVENT, which no one else seems to read, much less follow. The word, 'and', appears to be of particular difficulty for many editors: have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, is the big one, as echoed in the Background section. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred). Attempts to explain any of that ends with (at best) a perfunctory 'agree to disagree' as you can see above. Since policy arguments are seen by most closers as no more persuasive than emotional pleas, we are ending up exactly where you say, with many thousands of articles on shock news. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, I wish I could just copy-and-paste this for my justification whenever I nominate a non-notable crime article for deletion (there are many more that I would've liked to have nominated, but I try not to clog up AfD). Replace a few words and it also applies to accidents, disasters, "incidents", etc. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed your view on a couple of "accident" AfDs in July using WP:RAPID as rationale, while admitting they were within the remit of NOTNEWS. My thinking was that if in a year's time nothing much had resulted from or been subsequently reported on the incidents, I'd likely go for delete in a follow up AfD. Brief particulars of this shooting are listed in List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022, though why such comprehensive listings of these shootings are being maintained is itself questionable. We're already up to 23 separate US mass shooting articles for 2023, which looks like a record year in terms of numbers. This one from 2022 being gang related, suggests little or no political impact, so a year later we no longer need a separate article, the brief note in the list covers the main aspects, but on balance it was acceptable to publish an article on this immediately after the incident. Rupples (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ed's well thought out logic and rebuttals. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOTNEWS and SUSTAINED. A burst of coverage at the time, then crickets. Only local coverage afterward on the one-year anniversary. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article passes the WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. The case to delete appears rooted in WP:IDONTLIKEIT for which prove of WP:SUSTAINED is brushed aside. gidonb (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain prove of WP:SUSTAINED, please? Other than two retrospective articles that are more about the community reactions a year later, I couldn't find anything. If you could add your sources, that could sway the conversation. Also, please remember that events have special guidelines under WP:NEVENT that are equally important. Lastly, all but one Delete !vote specifies a policy objection, so could you expand on the WP:IDONTLIKEIT point as well, please? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your reaction illustrates what I just said: The sustained coverage has been identified, yet it is brushed aside. If anyone else wants to support my opinion they are also welcome to it! gidonb (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Gidonb, not to mention court proceedings will continue. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
gidonb, you didn't answer either question, so I'll rephrase: what WP:SUSTAINED sources are you talking about? They aren't on this page, and they aren't in the article. The only ones here are local mentions of the fact that the event happened with no analysis or integration, nor mention of any WP:LASTING impact... or even lasting interest. In fact, the articles themselves explain why this event cannot pass WP:NEVENT (emphasis added in all): Despite last year’s violence, she wasn’t shocked to learn that it had happened. “There’s constant shootings. And it’s like, ‘Oh, there was one only two blocks from us. Oh, this is a carjacking.’” and “family and friends mention it,” he said, “but South Street is still packed every Thursday through Sunday.” and "It slowed down dramatically because the traffic slowed down, but as of now it's picking up to where it used to be," Maverick said. Sarah Cowell from the South Street Headhouse District told FOX 29 no businesses closed as a direct result of the South Street shooting, and 38 new business have opened since 2022. This is the poster child for a terrible crime that, sadly, is simply not notable. I would also still appreciate some sort of explanation of your WP:IDONTLIKEIT assertion. It seems the only people who are providing policy specific are the deletionists (a group in which it is extremely odd to find myself). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you that the two sources produced to support SUSTAINED don't cut the mustard. Those two sources are local media reports so don't contribute to notability under WP:GEOSCOPE. For the article to be retained I'd want to see coverage outside Philadelphia. However, User:Another Believer may have a point on the court proceedings, which could feasibly be reported more widely. That's why I'm uncertain as to what's the best course of action at present and have refrained from !voting. Rupples (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm sorry to prolong this AFD but I see No Consensus, leaning Delete. It seems to all rest on WP:SUSTAINED here. Is a Redirect a possibility?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current !vote is 7:6 in favour of Keep. Since there is no consensus (to delete; this is a delete discussion) then surely the default is keep. WWGB (talk) 05:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • You could really see it either way depending on how you interpret guidelines like WP:NOTNEWS. I think it might be more productive to have a community discussion to more clearly define WP:NCRIME on which cases meet on notability and which do not, looking at List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022 for other examples. Also, it might be worth moving articles such as this over to Wikinews instead. - Indefensible (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would definitely support either option, a merge into List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022 or movement to Wikinews. The subject and sources meet policy for either (or both). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose merge to list (most of the entries there are a single sentence) or move to Wikinews. I agree with WWGB here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't look like an article in Wikinews would get the level of readership and exposure as one here, based on page views. Don't see much point in merging to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022, other than to add the outcome of the court case as the salient facts of the shooting are already mentioned there. A redirect to that article or to South Street, Philadelphia would however be appropriate and is preferable to outright deletion. If the page history is retained, the article could always be 'resurrected' should anything of significance result from the court case. It would maintain the integrity of NOTNEWS/SUSTAINED/GEOSCOPE which in my view this article is not compliant with, notwithstanding it passing GNG on sources. Rupples (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Does pageviews really matter that much? The main point is the content lives somewhere across Wiki rather than just being deleted. The main suggestion I gave above was actually to improve WP:NCRIME which is largely useless right now. Once better thresholds are defined, it would become much clearer which articles meet the criteria for inclusion and which do not so that we do not have as many of these split decisions that end in no consensus. For the cases which do not meet, we could simply move the content to Wikinews and then cross-link it on the list page. - Indefensible (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to South Street, Philadelphia or delete. Not convinced by the Keep arguments, none of which have addressed WP:EFFECTS. WP:EVENTCRITERIA asks us to consider whether an event has longstanding or historical impact and the scope of coverage. This has not been demonstrated. Indeed, as User:Last1in has astutely pointed out, the retrospective 1 year anniversary sources lately added to the article imply the opposite. Police presence in the area increased for a few months, then returned to normal. Trade diminished in the aftermath, then recovered. Locals naturally scared to venture out, but confidence has largely returned. In summary, no lasting, significant impact and any temporary impact confined to the immediate neighbourhood, so WP:GEOSCOPE another indicator of notability is not satisfied. That's why I suggest a redirect to South Street, Philadelphia as an AtD — a bit more detail of this incident could be added there, but a full merge would give disproportionate weight to the incident. Also consider WP:DEPTH, yes, sources report the incident but where's the analysis that gives context to the shooting? Failing support for redirect, on policy grounds, it's delete. Rupples (talk) 03:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOTNEWS and SUSTAINED. AryKun (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the response to my relist, I'm leaving this discussion for another closer to handle. Liz Read! Talk! 04:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony DiNozzo[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Anthony DiNozzo (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)

Although there is a Reception section, I don't think it warrants the character's notability. Many parts of the Reception section are listicles, which does not prove notability. The reviews may prove some kind of notability, but they seem to only mention him in passing. A quick Google search does not give much to prove the character's notability.

I am sending this to AfD because I may be wrong and there are independent, reliable sources that don't just talk about him in passing (see Ziva David as an example). If there is not, I would recommend a merge and/or redirect to List of NCIS characters#Anthony DiNozzo. Spinixster (chat!) 08:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and/or redirect to list of NCIS characters, no need for character to have his own page
Elttaruuu (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused How does Tony DiNozzo and Ziva David exist and be B class if this isn't notable? Never watched any of the shows, but it appears that someone put a lot of effort into that article... which suggests that some of that work might be useful here, or that that article's rating isn't really sustainable. Jclemens (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jclemens It can certainly be possible that a character is not notable on their own but notable with another character, see Category:Fictional duos (more specifically Category:Television duos) for some examples. Spinixster (chat!) 09:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you had an opportunity to look through that article to see if any of its references support independent notability for this article's topic? Jclemens (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jclemens I already did, but many of them talk about the duo more than Anthony himself. Spinixster (chat!) 08:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, if he is found to be NN as an individual character I would support a merge to the duo, rather than generically to the character list. Jclemens (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge. The duo might be a better target than the generic list, but I don't feel strongly. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources in the criticial reception section establish notability. Upon a brief look-over, this article appears bloated and could benefit from a trimdown, but that's a content pruning issue, not an article deletion issue. To top it off, I'm going to type "cultural impact of Anthony Dinozzo" into Google right now to see if I get any recent significant coverage: Looper in 2022 ScreenRant in 2023 I'm also getting hits on Google Scholar that specifically mention the character: Transmitting culture transnationally: the characterisation of parents in the police procedural and Providing the CSI treatment: Criminal justice practitioners and the CSI effect I observe that the last deletion discussion for this article was in 2008 when the show was more popular. It's absolutely valid to reevaluate notability after all this time, but I think we would be able to establish notability even if we limited ourselves to only sources from the past few years + scholarly articles. @Spinixster:, I notice you nominated several police procedural character articles for deletion, and each time you cited notability as the only problem. Is it possible the real issue is something else? Later on in the discussion of Catherine Willows, you mentioned "fancruft." Upon a very, very brief look-over, most of them look top-heavy on the in-universe content. Could it be that, and not notability, that's making these articles seem unencyclopedic to you? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Darkfrog24 It’s bold of you to assume that I was looking for someone to clean up the article, as I said in the nom, I was starting a debate over whether or not the character is notable. Sure, fancruft may be a problem, too, but it is not that big of a problem to start an AfD over. I already said the main issue was notability, since Wikipedia only allows notable content. It needs to have WP:SIGCOV, having a lot of sources / scholar sources =/= notability. If you think the character is notable, give proof, like you did. That’s why I sent it to AfD in the first place, for people to debate over if something should be deleted or not. Spinixster (chat!) 16:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, forgot to mention this, but Looper is owned by Static Media, which is an advertising content farm, so I would say it's unreliable. Spinixster (chat!) 01:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not assume you were looking for someone to clean up the article. I have seen Wikieditors say "The problem here is this clear-cut, bright-line thing outlined by clear yes/no policy" when they really meant "Yes also that but the problem is mostly this highly subjective and unclear thing that is a matter of opinion," and it looks like that could be what's happening here. Subjective things and opinions still matter and can still merit action even though they're not clear yes/no bright-line policy issues and I think we need to normalize talking about them to prevent trouble.
    If you say "we should delete this article because the subject's not notable," then the respondants will focus on whether the subject is notable and might not even notice anything else that might be wrong with said article. If that is indeed what you meant "It's notable"/"It's not notable" is indeed the response you want, then everything's fine. But I got an answer to that one in only a cursory search. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I might as well do an assessment on this too:
    • As said before, I would say that Looper is unreliable because it is owned by Static Media, which is an advertising content farm. As per the content, it seems to be ripped off a Reddit discussion, which doesn't necessarily prove notability.
    • ScreenRant is marginally reliable (WP:RSP), but I think it's reliable in this context. But it seems to be more about Michael Weatherly, the actor who plays DiNozzo, than the character himself. Just because a character has a fan following doesn't mean the character is inherently notable enough to have a separate page.
    • I cannot access the Google Scholar sources, so I cannot do an assessment of that.
    I have done a WP:BEFORE search before this, and many sources I found were trivial (WP:TRIVIA / WP:NOTTVTROPES) or more about the actor. As said in WP:FICTION, Specifically, fictional elements are presumed to be notable if there is significant coverage in independent secondary sources about the fictional element; when a fictional element is presumed notable, a separate article to cover that element is usually acceptable. So you'd need more sources about the character that are not just plot summaries or trivia but rather from a real-world perspective. Spinixster (chat!) 08:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 September 5.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given DRV, giving it more time and eyes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) NM 01:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkville University[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Yorkville University (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:ORGCRIT. I can’t find any RS for this except some PR pieces. Some articles have a passing mention of the existence of the university but that’s it. NM 01:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I found one. Is that enough? NM 01:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vasil Amashukeli#Dəniz kənarında gəzinti. Liz Read! Talk! 02:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seaside Walk[edit]

Seaside Walk (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 meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. BangJan1999 01:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 02:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Academy Award Winners for Best Picture, Director, Actor and Actress[edit]

List of Academy Award Winners for Best Picture, Director, Actor and Actress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has no reason to exist. All the information it contains is hosted elsewhere on Wikipedia and it provides no new insight or information about it. It's just a reformatting of information from pages that do serve an actual purpose. KingEuronIIIGreyjoy (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 02:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Graham (singer)[edit]

Tommy Graham (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)

Non-notable musician / producer. Natg 19 (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Natg 19 (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT. There are charting claims here (which a cursory check of the RPM database did verify), so he would be eligible to keep a properly written and properly sourced article, but just having a couple of modest chart hits on genre charts (but never the main national Top 40 chart) is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have any sources at all, and the article as written has a significant advertorial skew that can't stand under WP:NPOV requirements. No prejudice against recreation if somebody can write and source something significantly better than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and recreate if sourcing could be found. Agree with above, this is written in such a promotional tone that it needs WP:TNTing. Surprised I could not find copyvio in there, searched for a few choice lines. Hits a 0% on Earwig. With proper sourcing and improvement, subject may pass GNG, but as of now is just a completely unsourced promotional BLP.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 16:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gromer Khan[edit]

Al Gromer Khan (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 German musician/composer/artist. Natg 19 (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NBAND#5. This musician has dozens of recordings including four on New Earth Records which has been around for 30+ years and also features Terry Oldfield and Prem Joshua among others. New age is a niche style and New Earth Records is even more niche than something like Windham Hill, but they have a very long track record of releases.
I can see how this artist is marginal on notability, particularly given the state of the article, but it would be helpful if the nominator could indicate the specific rationale for saying it fails notability, particularly since this artist has a long career with many releases. Oblivy (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find RS or SIGCOV about him, though perhaps others are better at searching. Natg 19 (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found enough reliable sources to prove notability including entries about him in the All Music Guide: The Best CDs, Albums & Tapes (1994, page 1229) and The Crack in the Cosmic Egg: Encyclopedia of Krautrock, Kosmische Musik & Other Progressive, Experimental & Electronic Musics from Germany (1997, page 97). I also found a number of reviews and coverage of his music on AllMusic and in various new age and mental healing books. One of the weirdest examples is The Tao of Music, Sound Psychology: Using Music to Change Your Life by John M Ortiz, where on page 253 the author said listening to Khan's music helped someone achieve an orgasm in lovemaking. That alone has got to prove notability! --SouthernNights (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_September_22&oldid=1177969882"