Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 05 September 07 >

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 move to draft‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hélio Varela[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Interview with his manager, incredibly brief match report and another match report. You know that is unacceptable for GNG so why do you persist in claiming it passes GNG? Notability isn't inherited either. Dougal18 (talk) 10:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify, I guess. Zero SIGCOV.
JoelleJay (talk) 00:30, 14 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. ✗plicit 23:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ruann Coleman[edit]

Ruann Coleman (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'm not convinced this person meets WP:BIO or WP:ARTIST. Most of the supplied coverage is not WP:SIGCOV like it merely confirms his work was exhibited. Would need some more independent coverage like mainstream press. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and South Africa. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As the subject lack WP:SIGCOV, as evidenced by my Google News search, which yielded only limited coverage from a decade ago and passing mentions. After considering these findings, I initially contemplated voting to "Draftify" the article. However, my further exploration of the artist's social media revealed a post stating that their artwork had been suspended. This development suggests that it is unlikely this person will receive any substantial future coverage that would allow the article to meet the criteria for significant coverage. The combination of the article's lack of significant coverage and the suspension of the artist's work means it currently does not pass both WP:SIGCOV and WP:NARTIST.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 09:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am not finding any reliable sources on the artist. Fails WP:ARTIST, no notable exhibitions or collections found. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:12, 11 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 Aar Paar (1985 film)#Bengali voice track version. Liz Read! Talk! 03:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyay Abichar[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Anyay Abichar (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 per WP:NFILM. Google search comes up with about 70 results -- directory listings for the film and its soundtrack, but no reviews or significant discussion. ... discospinster talk 19:38, 23 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! 23:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A passing newspaper mention suggests this might be the same film as Samanta's Aar Paar (1985 film), but with a Bengali voice track instead of Hindi. If that's the case, what's the best practice for handling that in Wikipedia? --Worldbruce (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much @Worldbruce. If that is the same film with only the voice track in Bengali, I'd say redirect to the Hindi-language film, to a section /Bengali voice track version/. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:37, 8 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! 23:25, 6 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 02:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deej Fabyc[edit]

Deej Fabyc (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 and WP:ARTIST. 5 of the sources provided are own website. LibStar (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found and added additional sources - newspaper reviews/notices of exhibitions and events along with indicators of esteem from art/academic sources. DrawingDays (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DrawingDays, could you please post links here so that we can read and analyze them. Without seeing them it is hard to know if they are significant coverage. I'll have a look at the article. Netherzone (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delete - I went thru the new sources and they are mostly primary, non-independent sources; for example her own website; press releases for projects/oerformances, galleries where she showed, are trivial coverage or don't mention her at all, or are 404s. What is needed to establish notability are the criteria found in WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST; significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The only possible source might be the book, 25 years of performance art in Australia : performance art, performance & events, however WorldCat provides no information on whether is a single sentence on her or a whole chapter, and I am unable to search thru the book on GoogleBooks. Her work is interesting; if quality sources can be found I'm willing to change my !vote. Netherzone (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my !vote to Keep, after finding that she has a permanent public sculpture at HOTA Sculpture Park,[2],[3], (this would meet criteria #4a of NARTIST) and an entry in the Dictionary of Australian Artists Online[4], while I'm not familiar with this publication, I think it may meet criteria #3 of WP:ANYBIO. Combined with the museum collection, I think she is notable. Netherzone (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I ran this article through copyright violation detector and it looks to be a large amount of PR copied from the artist's various projects and websites. I removed many embedded links. I think the article is promotional double speak at the moment and needs a rewrite, deleting the large amount of malarkey. Leaning towards TNT, but starting over as well.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also DrawingDays might want to add citations correctly if they want them included in the article. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we draftify this? I'd be ok with that too. Oaktree b (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b that is a good idea. I'd also be ok with that. Netherzone (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b and Netherzone, may I take a scalpel to it? Either in draft state or now? Draftify works for me WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, boldly go. Oaktree b (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be great. Netherzone (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the article down to a "ThatMontrealIP" stub. I think it falls into the "notable" now. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! They had a talent for that. Will see now what can be done to start rebuilding it based on reliable sourcing. Netherzone (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you this is Deej Fabyc here could you kindly remove Simeon Nelson from my wiki as we were never married and we split up in 2010 My Partner from 2011-2023 was MJ Newell
https://rip.ie/death-notice/mark-newell-tipperary-borrisokane-517506
or this article
https://www.nenaghguardian.ie/2023/05/17/tragic-death-of-borrisokane-artist/
His Website https://snewell.wixsite.com/asbestostourism
This link might be of interest
https://www.academia.edu/37278079/What_is_Performance_Art_Australian_Perspectives_cover_and_contents_page
https://www.fabyc.co.uk/index.php/category/biblio/ 185.55.206.48 (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Deej, thank you for contacting us here. I was the editor who added that content and the personal life section. I will remove it. What would be helpful is providing, here and/or on the article talk page, citations in reliable sources WP:RS, like newspapers, books, and magazines that are fully independent (WP needs secondary sources). That will help us to develop the career section which helps to establish notability as an artist per WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. Sorry for so many acronyms, it's how WP links to it's policies and guidelines. Thank you for your input. Netherzone (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/news/deej-fabyc/ 185.55.206.48 (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Deej, for offering the links to these sources. When I find time, will add to the article, or any other unconnected editor can do so as well. Netherzone (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.academia.edu/29828264/Forty_years_and_counting
https://www.academia.edu/7278105/Making_Space_artist_run_initiatives_in_Victoria
https://www.academia.edu/7278105/Making_Space_artist_run_initiatives_in_Victoria
https://www.artsadmin.co.uk/profiles/deej-fabyc/ 185.55.206.48 (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deej Fabyc Here the education section is incorrect as it links to university of south wales I used to be a senior lecturer by coincidence at the university of Wales Newport
but I obtained my MFA from the University of New South Wales in Sydney Australia 185.55.206.48 (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Keep. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trimming the non-essentials, it really helped to understand the foundation, and what is key to the artist's notability. Netherzone (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding the finer details. I have no understanding of performance art. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:02, 5 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! 23:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deej Fabyc Here the education section is incorrect as it links to university of south wales I used to be a senior lecturer by coincidence at the university of Wales Newport but I obtained my MFA from the University of New South Wales in Sydney Australia
could those people who have now voted keep as above please make that clear?
Thank you 185.55.206.48 (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Deej Fabyc Again
Here are a load of secodary sources referring to my work if anyone wants to assess
https://bbeyond.live/one-body/
https://www.megalo.org/culture-clubs
https://www.castlefieldgallery.co.uk/event/kisss/
https://www.thisisliveart.co.uk/publishing/gracegracegrace-explore-gen-age/
https://www.artspace.org.au/program/exhibitions/2008/artspace-2425/
https://www.amazon.com/Eight-Artists-Trying-Talk-About/dp/0955406005
https://www.a-n.co.uk/events/bursary-showing-deej-fabyc-cat-house-camp/
https://galerijalkatraz.org/?p=3507
https://www.londonmet.ac.uk/news/articles/open-house/
https://www.homeliveart.com/event/an-audience-with-bob-roberta-smith-women-should-be-in-charge/
https://www.a-n.co.uk/reviews/sold-out/
https://www.mkfm.com/news/local-news/bolshy-older-women-bring-live-art-to-mk-gallery/
http://15minutefactory.blogspot.com/2009/08/performance-kiss-deej-fabyc.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Southern_Cross_University_people
https://www.artsadmin.co.uk/profiles/deej-fabyc/
https://www.mutualart.com/Exhibition/A-Connection-Is-Made/F10C76CE0987E58B
https://www.nenaghguardian.ie/2022/07/07/borrisokane-georgian-mansion-to-host-international-performance-art-festival/
https://www.artscouncil.ie/Funding-decisions/Professional-Development-Award-2020---Fabyc,-Deej-862122919/
https://www.abebooks.com/first-edition/Deej-Fabyc-Strawberry-Girl-Projects-1995/22850178812/bd
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/james-payne/ghosts-of-deutsche-bank_b_1017119.html\\
https://spacestudios.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/EightConversations1206_hi.pdf
https://kudmreza.org/resident-deej-fabyc/
https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/catalog/2109810
https://www.cornerhousepublications.org/publications/making-love-to-my-ego/
https://www.daao.org.au/bio/deej-fabyc/
https://www.ktpress.co.uk/nparadoxa-volume-details.asp?volumeid=17
https://londonewcastle.com/arts/gallery-46/a-connection-is-made
https://galerijalkatraz.org/?p=10460
https://shop.monash.edu/private-parts.html
https://www.roslynoxley9.com.au/exhibition/every-other-day/ljgmn
https://www.gresolart.com/fem_2020/
https://sfsia.art/2016-berlin/2016-berlin-exhibition/ 185.55.206.48 (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment * - As of September 11 the article has been completely rewritten and differs significantly from the article nominated for deletion. Major edits occurred Sept 2 - 5, 2023. I hope that an uninvolved editor reads the article with fresh eyes and then contributes to the conversation. Thank you!. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Ireland. Netherzone (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but improve. There are quite a few good sources, and some not so good ones (i.e. a personal website). Also, we need to avoid WP:COI (Conflict of interest) as people aren't generally allowed to edit their own articles, for obvious reasons. You can use Template:Edit_COI on the article's talk page if you want to improve it, along with what your proposed edit is. MarkiPoli (talk) 13:38, 13 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 Astro (company). Liz Read! Talk! 03:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Astro QJ HD[edit]

Astro QJ HD (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 significance. Fails WP:NCORP scope_creepTalk 20:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could not find any significant sources. Salsakesh (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now i have found the source in Xuan website. Harimua Thailand (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lets look at the ref:
Merge to Astro (company), since article is currently a short stub with minimal sourcing. If content and sourcing can be improved, this article can return stand-alone later. Dl2000 (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No need to merge, The source has already found. Harimua Thailand (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another ref added.
Ref 3 [7] Reads like a press-release. Company name change. Fails WP:SIRS. scope_creepTalk 08:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please assess changes to the article since nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 30 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! 23:23, 6 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! 23:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Water Channel[edit]

Water Channel (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)

Completely unsourced article of a now defunct TV sports channel. Tagged for more sources since 2019, but no improvements have been made since then. CycloneYoris talk! 23:11, 6 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. WP:G5, creator and their friend are the long-blocked Stluciainformation. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC) GeneralNotability (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Maier[edit]

Jackson Maier (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)

After attempting a few searches, The only remotely notable thing I see about this guy is that he pretended to be an Irish Lord a couple years ago. I don't see any reliable sources (outside of those discussing that hoax) that do anything but mention his name. Onorem (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I vote no. The user who awarded this page has an extensive history of picking fights with other users and has been reprimanded for it. Administrator does not mean abuser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faits1789 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Faits1789 has removed the AFD tag 3 times now, and then moved the article to draft space. I don't have time or patience to try right now to clean this up. --Onorem (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why there are Admins -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Administrator does not mean not an abuser, it means you have power. Can you post your reasoning for concurring with me on notability as listed on my talk pale? I'm actually trying to get something done Faits1789 (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New York Times, Playbill aren't sources? I'm not sure what internet you're using but the citations are there. If you want to delete the oage, delete the page. If you want to improve something that your fellow administrator thinks meets notability criteria, please help. I cannot ask more than I already have. Faits1789 (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm not sure exactly what's happened over the course of 24 hours. This went from my first published article with a lot of great help to what seems to be incorrect deleting. Informsnow19 (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable acting credits, no serious coverage beyond the "Irish Lord" hoax. Fails NBIO/GNG.-KH-1 (talk) 00:47, 7 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! 23:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yoselyn López[edit]

Yoselyn López (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 subject has earned at least four caps for the El Salvador women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:29, 6 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 List of El Salvador women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roxana Vega[edit]

Roxana Vega (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)

Redirect to List of El Salvador women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least six caps for the El Salvador women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:26, 6 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 List of PBS member stations. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of PBS member stations (table)[edit]

List of PBS member stations (table) (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)

Duplicates List of PBS member stations. Fuddle (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, Lists, and United States of America. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a duplicate. This is a sortable table, which is probably a more convenient way for users to access the data. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm not seeing the need for a separate article for a tabular form. If consensus is to shift to such a form, that change should be made on the current article. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a sortable table of member stations, it's a table of just five stations. Anyone is welcome to add tables to the main article, but this page is useless and unnecessary. Reywas92Talk 22:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and consider reformatting the main list to present some of this info; maybe go to a tabular format. But I don't see the reason to have two different versions at this point. Mangoe (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of PBS member stations as WP:CHEAP, to preserve history in case someone wants to pick up the project again. I'd consider draftify, but that might be a backdoor deletion. —siroχo 05:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of PBS member stations if possible. If not Delete as this existing article is rather small while List of PBS member stations is more comprehensive. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see the point of redirecting. Mangoe (talk) 00:39, 10 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! 23:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Dream Machine[edit]

Independent Dream Machine (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 company. All movies are red-linked, founder does not have his own page (or I would have redirected). The external links do not establish notability. Search results are merely entries in database-type websites. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 21:16, 6 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 List of Luxembourg women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Marin[edit]

Karen Marin (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 subject has earned 12 caps for the Luxembourg women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:04, 6 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 2010 United States House of Representatives elections in Alabama#District 5. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Raby[edit]

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

There are two claims here. The first is politician. The second is businessman. I do not believe the subject fits either. Under politician, he was a candidate for Congress and Chief of Staff to a US Senator. The election was a typical race consisting of typical run of the mill coverage. The arguments made in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Raby are all to the effect of "major candidate for major office!" which is not how WP:NPOL works. His candidacy has no real enduring legacy or substantial coverage. A sampling of others in the Category of Political chiefs of staff indicates that most chiefs of staff who have Wikipedia articles either lead national governments or have their claim to notability through holding an elected office. As a business owner, the article identifies him as President of Huntsville Direct Communications. I do not believe this role or this business meet GNG. This article was previously nominated for deletion two weeks before the 2010 election, which unsurprisingly received a substantial amount of blowback and ended with a keep consensus. I believe that consensus was wrong. Per the typical outcomes, I believe this should be deleted or redirected to 2010 United States House of Representatives elections in Alabama. Mpen320 (talk) 20:36, 6 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! 03:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ankur Warikoo[edit]

Ankur Warikoo (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 Youtuber, running ads all around, no significant business executive roles, selling his courses online via ads, CLEARLY fails WP:NOTABILITY, created by UPE (now blocked) Fishgrail2 (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This person is a public figure who has been creating impactful content and has significant news coverage in independent non-paid media. Indeed he runs a lot of paid ads and a lot of people feel bothered by the recurrent ads but that cannot create an exclusion. Diptanshu 💬 17:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good to see you back after so long, can you please share the references that are fully featured and independent non-paid media? Fishgrail2 (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Delhi. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:51, 30 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! 19:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete most of the coverage I came across seem to press meet/interviews. I also have doubts some coverage might be paid. In any case, subject doesn't have enough significant coverage in reliable sources, thus failing general notability criteria. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nomination Worldiswide (talk) 11:16, 12 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! 23:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Palette[edit]

Sonic Palette (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 much external SIGCOV, seems to fail WP:GNG. #prodraxis connect 19:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sourcing at all for this musical device. Oaktree b (talk) 01:19, 7 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 03:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy McGee[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Timothy McGee (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. 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#Timothy McGee. Spinixster (chat!) 08:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 08:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I observe that the only reason given for this deletion request is the belief that the subject is not notable enough. I observe that the last time this article was nominated for deletion was over fifteen years ago, when the show was more popular. This is an appropriate time to reevaluate it. I tried to plug "cultural impact of Timothy McGee" into Google and got a lot of hits for a non-fictional musician. I was able to find some analysis [8] [9] [10] but it wasn't the clear and immediate trip I had for same-show character Jethro Gibbs. I note some problems with the Wikipedia article. The criticial reception section needs updating because the character changed personality in season eight and changed role after the departure of the actor who played the lead. I'm going to sum my feelings up as Weak keep. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources provided are mostly WP:TRIVIA / WP:NOTTVTROPES and Looper is unreliable because it is a content farm (owned by Static Media), so it is not enough to demonstrate notability. It might be better to search "Timothy McGee NCIS" instead. Spinixster (chat!) 03:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no WP:RSP determination that Looper is unreliable. BD2412 T 21:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412 See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 270#Reliability level of Looper.com?. Spinixster (chat!) 07:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A two-person question-and-answer exchange on the subject is hardly definitive. Looper does have a published editorial policy, and I have seen no assertion that it is not observed. BD2412 T 14:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412 Yes, however, the sources are WP:TRIVIA / WP:NOTTVTROPES, so they do not prove notability. Spinixster (chat!) 14:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you have invoked these policies, I welcome you to explain how a 1,000+ word article examining the evolution of a character (in a way that fans of the series apparently dislike) is either trivial or a "TV trope". BD2412 T 15:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412 The problem is, does that article really prove a character's notability? Just because fans hated a character's evolution does not necessarily mean that the character is notable. Spinixster (chat!) 10:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not talking about fan tweets or Facebook posts, though, but about a media outlet publication of substantial length on a subject routinely seen in millions of homes. I have also now added reference to an Entertainment Weekly article that also touches on the evolution of the character. BD2412 T 14:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412 Popularity does not equal notability; it says so in WP:N. Sure, some people may hate Timothy McGee's storyline, but does that give him enough notability for a separate page? Do all characters that are negatively received deserve a separate page? There need to be more sources that prove the character's individual notability, and an interview might not be the best choice since it's primary (WP:Interviews). Spinixster (chat!) 10:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to the fact that there is additional coverage in a reliable source. The interview is not "primary" for the fictional character, Timothy McGee, because that subject is a fictional character, and this is not some sort of in-universe interview. BD2412 T 17:57, 8 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! 19:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if the best thing the nom can do to refute sources that others have raised is cite Wikipedia policies about how we present information rather than about sourcing, this is rebuttable evidence that there is no real argument against the sources in question. GNG is passed, article stays, discuss redirect/merge on the talk page if desired. Jclemens (talk) 07:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Notability is a policy on what is notable and what is not, and it also includes information about sourcing.
    WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOTTVTROPES are policies / essays saying that trivial information should not be included and/or does not prove notability. This is important because this is a fictional element from a popular show, and thus trivial sources would be common, but that does not mean that the character has SIGCOV.
    WP:Interviews is an essay about interviews. I brought this up because a source that is an interview with the actor was added, and it is a primary source, which means that it does not prove notability.
    Elaborating on the sourcing issues:
    • if a show has SIGCOV, that means that show is notable, but not necessarily the characters, unless there are sources proving the character's individual notability:
      • The reviews only mention him in passing, and if sources mentioning him in passing are enough, that would mean that other characters that are obviously not notable, like characters that only appear in 1 or 2 episodes, would be deemed notable if they are described in a few sources.
      • But there are a lot of sources about only the character, and/or the character is one of the main characters, you'd say. In this case, it depends on the content. If it's trivia, that's not notable. It's very common to find storyline summaries when searching for a fictional element. Does that mean that Element X is notable because there are sources summarizing the storylines or trivia regarding the element? No, more sources would be needed, like reception and analysis for the element in question. If it's reception and analysis, it depends on the source, how in depth it goes into the subject matter, etc. I have experience editing fictional character pages and have been involved in arguments regarding some characters' notability. I have searched on Google per WP:BEFORE, but no sources that satisfy the notability guideline came up.
    • popularity does not equal notability, as said in WP:N. For example, Battle for Dream Island is a very popular web series with millions of views, but it is not notable because it does not pass the GNG and thus does not have a page (WP:BFDI). In this instance, the character's storyline and evolution are heavily discussed by fans, but does that really prove individual notability? Again, in WP:N, notability has to have significant coverage, so another reason would have to be added.
    I don't see what you are saying about "cite Wikipedia policies about how we present information rather than about sourcing," I had never cited Wikipedia policies on how to present information. Would you care to elaborate, @Jclemens? Spinixster (chat!) 09:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TRIVIA is an MoS element, hence a guideline rather than a policy or essay. It says absolutely nothing about what sources are acceptable or not; Like any MoS element, it reflects how we (Wikipedia) cover items. NOTTVTROPES is an essay about differentiating our coverage--again, presentation of data here on Wikipedia, not sourcing--from that website. Your statement that I had never cited Wikipedia policies on how to present information. is technically correct since neither are policies, but otherwise not accurate, in that you tried to use an MoS element and an essay to justify not using certain websites as sourcing. That is a category error, and demonstrates that your arguments are void. The fact that you made reference to a real content guideline, N, does nothing to remove the inappropriate arguments undermining your position. Jclemens (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well then that's my mistake. My point with the TRIVIA / NOTTVTROPES can be deemed invalid, but other points are still valid. Spinixster (chat!) 13:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sphinixster is just making us work for it. Without people checking sources, at least some Wikieditors would be tempted to skimp, especially if they're fans of the fictional property or proponents of the concept. Any filing with a yes/no format is going to make people feel like opponents. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have already said I did a WP:BEFORE search in my reply, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia so if it's not notable, it should not be on there. WP:NOTDATABASE. Spinixster (chat!) 01:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some additional sources. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412, I would recommend using Template:Cite book and Template:Sfn for the book sources. The other sources seem fine for now. Spinixster (chat!) 03:40, 10 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 Wii Fit (tentatively, though if there is consensus to merge to the character list or to both, that's of course fine as well). Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wii Fit Trainer[edit]

Wii Fit Trainer (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 the same problem as Villager (Animal Crossing): the article is entirely about the character in terms of Super Smash Bros., and is relying on paper thin reception to keep it afloat. It's barely a character as is, which doesn't help matters. Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Assume good faith. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 10:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean but I assume you were misunderstanding my comment because I wasn't clear. I don't like the fact that a character in Wii Fit is notable but I suspect it is.
I didn't - and don't now - make any comment about the good faith of the nom, those who edited the page or anyone else involved. JMWt (talk) 10:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'd argue what's there is enough to justify the article's existence, though all of it being Smash related is a bit iffy. Pokelego999 (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hilariously before doing this I thought maybe there might've been something for all the um, well, porn the character's female counterpart had gotten, but even that was a dud after searching.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's honestly kind of funny Pokelego999 (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reception section shows reliable sources are reviewing the character. Dream Focus 20:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which sources are you identifying as significant coverage? Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They all comment on the character, not just giving passing mentions that she is there. It isn't like List of cancelled Nintendo Switch games where they just mention briefly that a company stated they aren't porting something to the Nintendo Switch. Dream Focus 21:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're being vague. Which ones are your WP:THREE? Sergecross73 msg me 23:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - despite the sources mostly covering their appearance in Smash Bros., this has little impact on their notability in my eyes. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a plausible defense of the naysayers, but it doesn't really advance any argument in support of notability. Sergecross73 msg me 01:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge covergae largely focused about Smash Bros. and the rest of the sources are trivia. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 04:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Oinkers42. It's also worth mentioning that Wii Fit Trainer is not well-known outside of Super Smash Bros., hence coverage mostly pertaining to that is natural. MoonJet (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MoonJet: if they're not well known outside of that game then they're not notable outside of it by your own admission, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - no evidence the subject meets the GNG, not a single Keep stance has given a valid argument for keeping it, they've just been piggy-backing WP:VAGUEWAVE arguments on each other. Sergecross73 msg me 18:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, similar to my stance and how it was closed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Villager_(Animal_Crossing), I believe the best redirect/merge target to be at the game that the subject originated from (in this scenario, Wii Fit.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing to merge, it'll just be deleted/redirected. The reception section is large and shows enough reliable sources have written about this character. Enough valid content to have its own article, no sense eliminating that for a brief mention in another article. Dream Focus 19:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not following any of this. What do you mean there's "nothing to merge"? And its been almost a full week and you still haven't provided your WP:THREE. I'm honestly surprised this was relisted with such vague rationales being thrown out here. Sergecross73 msg me 20:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You won't merge anything, you will just put a redirect to it. You couldn't fit all the valid content from this article over into the other one, it'd be too long. WP:Three is just an essay, and the creator of it actually commented on how people were misusing it. I see no reason for me to copy over the Reception section here, and point to the various things said about the character from reliable sources. Those who read the article either agree that's significant coverage in reliable sources, thus it meets the general notability guidelines, or they argue that doesn't count because the coverage is only about their appearance in one video game, which is not a valid reason to delete it. Nowhere is their any rule something has to be covered for multiple things. Dream Focus 21:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're issue is that you regard there isn't enough to preserve, but it should be preserved all the same? That's...some weird logic...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't what I said. Not sure where you got that from. There is enough to preserve in this article, it too much to fit in the other article. Dream Focus 21:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Merges don't require all 100% all information to be integrated, and you know that, so I don't know where you're going with this. This is not some complex scenario. It would be very easy to merge some of this video game character's article into its respective video game. It's a personal trainer who got put into a crossover fighting game. Pretty straightforward. Sergecross73 msg me 23:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, THREE is an essay, but it's certainly telling that, after multiple requests, (that you've clearly shown that you've seen) haven't provide any examples of good sources providing significant coverage. That's not exactly how experienced editors act when they've got good sources that prove notability. Sergecross73 msg me 00:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Divided between those arguing to Keep this article and those advocating a Merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect and merge to Wii Fit. I feel a majority of the voters above aren't providing very insightful rationale. However, this character, outside of Smash Bros, isn't notable and personally I don't see the impact this character would have regardless of its inclusion in Smash Bros. So, I suggest that it would be better off with a redirect to the main game with a section for the Smash Bros stuff. A redirect on the List can go to this section too. Conyo14 (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge some info to Wii Fit - Although some stuff in this article, such as her conception as an SSB character and popularity as a character among women, is absolutely worthy of coverage, it could easily be made into one to three paragraphs in the Legacy section of the Wii Fit article, and it would arguably work better there rather than being supported by a scaffold of trivia and fluff. ― novov t c 08:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. There's just not as much there as there could be, unfortunately. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:01, 9 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! 03:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Balotra News[edit]

Balotra News (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)

"Balotra News" lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, making it not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Further, It Fails WP:NMEDIA and WP:GNG.

Saurabh{Talk} 16:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, India, and Rajasthan. Saurabh{Talk} 16:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Balotra News" is a notable and relevant topic, it should have a Wikipedia page. Notability can be established if there are reliable sources and references to support its significance. Deleting such a page would deprive readers of valuable information. Moxrathorebalotra (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Material online appears to be largely promotional/non-independent in nature. The sources in the article are insufficient, and I can't see coverage elsewhere that would indicate notability by WP:GNG or any other standard. Also not finding references to stories picked up from Balotra in larger, reliable Indian news soures. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleting the Wikipedia page of Balotra News would deprive people of access to information about this important news source in their own language. Not everyone is fluent in English, and the Wikipedia page for Balotra News is available in several other languages, including Hindi, Urdu, and Gujarati. Deleting the English page would make it more difficult for people who do not speak English to access information about this news outlet. Roxblt (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC) — Roxblt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. The AFD tag has been removed from this article several times so that's something to keep an eye on.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia page for Balotra News is well-written and informative. It provides a comprehensive overview of the news outlet, its history, and its current activities. Deleting it would be a loss of valuable information. Moxrathorebalotra (talk) 17:45, 9 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. There is not a particular consensus as to whether this article should exist in its current form, but there is similarly no consensus to remove it. Several editors have suggested renaming the article to broaden its scope, but this is a discussion which can take place outside AfD. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Michalis Katsouris[edit]

Murder of Michalis Katsouris (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:SENSATION. Hard to make heads or tails of this as written. jps (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Football, Croatia, and Greece. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Michalis Katsouris is not a notable individual (Michalis Katsouris redirects to the article up for deletion), and this is not a notable incident. It is unfortunate that he was killed during a sports riot, but it is not terribly uncommon. Concur with nom that this seems WP:SENSATIONAL. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename and refactor – I am striking my previous !vote to concur with expanding the article's scope to cover the riot as a whole rather than focusing on the murder of a single non-notable individual. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if it would be better placed under a different title. The riot itself was certainly front page news for days. SportingFlyer T·C 09:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Comments Nominator is too focused on the title and not the whole picture, the title of the article and a redirect of the current title needs to be addressed. The basis of the article is okay, but in essence the focus has been taken away from the hooligan event to which the murder happened. This is an imbedded event inside an already greater event in Greek football history. I suggest that this will need to be partially rewritten and examined. I don't think a TNT is in order. A title rename to something like August 2023 Nea Filadelfeia hooligan riots and expand into that. Regards. Govvy (talk) 10:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I put this up for deletion precisely because I could not determine its notability owing to the writing and the bizarre sourcing. I would be thrilled if cleanup resulted in an article that was kept, but the article as written looked very nearly like a bizarre political screed to this poor, uninitiated reader of articles about soccer riots. jps (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you call the sourcing bizarre? It incorporates articles from basically every major Croatian news outlet. SportingFlyer T·C 13:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some text did not align with the sources. jps (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly significant coverage that passes GNG. Should be cleaned up not deleted.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to broaden the scope to the riots. Like most murders, this one is not notable, but the riots might be. We should also wipe most of the "reactions" section, which as usual has attracted an indiscriminate collection of statements. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Soccer riots, even those where people get killed, are unfortunately nothing out of the ordinary. And as this only happened a few weeks ago, there's no way of knowing whether there will be sustained coverage my hunch is "no"). Also, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. --Randykitty (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Plenković talked about it at his press conference just this week, so the coverage is already starting to be sustained. SportingFlyer T·C 13:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Randykitty: For starters, you're completely wrong, we do record most riots on wikipedia. Just take this template as an example.
  • And that is just a collection of the riots in England. What you call NOTNEWS and not sustained coverage is completely wrong. Because if you analyse the events we will see there is sustained coverage and it's still on going. These riots have in fact result in the Greek people persecuting Croatians further from the event, but related too. Govvy (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgive me for not being impressed with 3 weeks of coverage, that's not really what "sustained" means. And your template more or less makes my point by listing notable riots, but few (or even none) soccer-related riots. --Randykitty (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly notabl topic with ramifications. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above - article needing re-writing/re-naming is not an issue. GiantSnowman 16:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – questionable encyclopedical notability. But even if meeting standards for notability, language isn't unbiased and the article is written tendentiously. Motifs are still unclear and some information are media speculations.--Mudroslov (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Elements like renaming or editorial improvements can happen if it is decided to Keep this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it would be nice if one of the people who commented here would show us what an article that focused on the riot would look like in comparison to this current piece. I tried to write one myself, but found a lot of the sources were difficult to use in light of verifying what actually happened (there appear to be contradictory stories in some of the sources, for example). This is far outside my wheelhouse, so I'm not sure if my inability to figure out how to write about this is due to my inexperience or due to systemic issues that mean it is impossible to write such an article. Oh, and if there could be consensus for what the renamed article should be, that would be welcome too. I see one suggestion above, but it is not clear to me if the other !voters like that name (I must admit calling something a "hooligan riot" doesn't pass the knee-jerk WP:NPOV test in my mind, but if that's what these things are called, that's what they're called). jps (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, per all the sources that this article has makes this very infamous. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:NOTNEWS, there is nothing showing this will have any WP:LASTING impact.  // Timothy :: talk  23:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - with all the sourcing this article has of different sources of course it should be kept ((User: Suncheon Boy]] 8:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suncheon Boy (talk • contribs) — Suncheon Boy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • keep - and why not, this article has 38 good sources and that is surely keep worthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.183.250 (talk) 20:43, 13 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. ✗plicit 05:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Explosive[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:38, 30 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! 19:34, 6 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 Viva Records (Philippines). as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 03:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eurasia (musical group)[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably a redirect to Viva Records? To be honest, I haven't heard of this group in the Philippines, so they're probably one performing group that never quite made it big, but were signed by a major recording label nevertheless. --- Tito Pao (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for this Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:33, 6 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! 00:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Experience (Rize album)[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:41, 30 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! 19:31, 6 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. in light of the new sources found and the comments of the nominator. Editors are urged to integrate these sources into the article being discussed. Liz Read! Talk! 00:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Thirsty Whale[edit]

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

Complete original research with no indication of notability that has absolutely no sources. I found one source that although it mentions the venue in the title, doesn't say much else about it. Most other Google search results are fan and nostalgia oriented. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Illinois. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added the source you found to the article, and I found one more source, but my searches are complicated by the fact that there is a lot of coverage of two different bars by the same name in Maine and Florida (this one was in Illinois). Those two are still operational, and this one went out of business in 1998. I'm leaning towards thinking this is likely notable just based on the source I found that indicates it was recognized by the Illinois Rock & Roll Museum's hall of fame. However, as it stands the article is almost entierly unsourced, and likely original research. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. "Bands get chance to try out talent". The Times of Northwest Indiana. Associated Press. 1992-08-23. Archived from the original on 2023-09-03. Retrieved 2023-09-03 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Aspiring musicians tired of playing to imaginary audiences in the exile of their parents' garages can turn up the volume and let it rip at The Thirsty Whale. The suburban Chicago club holds an open sign-up night once monthly that gives garage bands a chance to test their talents. ... Many of the bands are drawn from the Chicago suburbs, where teens are looking for a way to escape suburban boredom."

    2. Reger, Rick (1996-05-31). "Heavy metal drought forces closure of the last headbanger hangout". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-09-03. Retrieved 2023-09-03 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: " For the past 15 years, the Thirsty Whale in River Grove has been the prime venue for up-and-coming and national metal bands. But after this weekend, the club closes its doors, leaving the city without a certifiable headbanger hangout. It's an unmistakable sign that metal is commercially kaput. ... admits Thirsty Whale owner Jim DeCanio. ...  DeCanio purchased the club in 1981 and began luring metal bands to it just as the genre was rising to a huge commercial crescendo. ... The Thirsty Whale's final weekend will feature shows Friday and Saturday by local pop-metal maestros Enuff Z'Nuff, whose new record "Tweaked" throws the Beatles, the blues and other classic rock touchstones into its hard-rock cauldron. Radakka closes things out on Sunday."

    3. Vitello, Barbara (1996-01-05). "Experience it - It's hard, heavy, head-banging, thrashing rock. Just like the - good ol' days". Daily Herald. Archived from the original on 2023-09-03. Retrieved 2023-09-03.

      The article notes: "Even the Thirsty Whale, one of Chicagoland's few remaining hard rock/heavy metal venues, has felt the pinch. Former competitors like Chances R. and Stay Out West have closed or switched formats, but The Thirsty Whale endures. ... Over 100 bands a month played The Thirsty Whale when the north suburban club featured music five nights a week. ... A show at the Whale is still a bargain (five or six bands for $6) but it can be a hit or miss proposition. Not every band is as finely tuned as it might be. But it's a place for young bands to get their first break and their first taste of the live local scene."

    4. DeRogatis, Jim (2009-10-14). "The Thirsty Whale Reunion". Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on 2023-09-03. Retrieved 2023-09-03.

      The article notes: "But from the early '80s through the mid-'90s, that lovably grungy dive was known as the Thirsty Whale, and it was the epicenter of the regional hard-rock and heavy-metal scenes, host to thousands of hopeful up-and-comers as well as national acts such as Extreme, Foghat, Survivor, Cheap Trick and Enuff Z'nuff. ... Indeed they are, and because of the enduring popularity of these genres -- the "Rock Band" video game can take much of the credit for that -- as well as the fact that many of the musicians and fans who cut their teeth at the Thirsty Whale have never found another place that quite measured up, they will gather to celebrate the legacy at two shows this weekend, organized as a labor of love by the man most know as Tony Shark."

    5. Shields, Todd (1996-03-27). "Mayor responds to teen center plea". River Grove Messenger. Archived from the original on 2023-09-03. Retrieved 2023-09-03.

      The article notes: "The closing of the Thirsty Whale rock 'n' roll club has prompted a request to River Grove officials for a teen center to take its place. Scheduled for demolition in spring, the Thirsty Whale at River Road and Grand Avenue provided entertainment for young teen-agers for many years, said Rita Louis, a resident who said she believes the club provided a gathering place."

    6. Shields, Todd (1996-06-05). "DeCanio's club ends whale of a run". River Grove Messenger. Archived from the original on 2023-09-03. Retrieved 2023-09-03.

      The article notes: "In the dank reaches of The Cave, John the bartender tells another patron he has no farewell T-shirts or jackets for sale to commemorate the last weekend of the Thirsty Whale. The man, hair far below his shoulders, is about 35 years old or more, shrugs, says thanks, and exits into bright afternoon sunshine, perhaps reconciled he'll never again see the rock 'n' roll groups he witnessed in this raucous, hard-nosed club that has hosted the country's best traveling bar bands since 1981."

    7. Shields, Todd (1996-05-22). "Thirsty Whale to sell "everything" after closing". Elm Leaves. Archived from the original on 2023-09-03. Retrieved 2023-09-03.

      The article notes: "Fittingly, but not planned that way, one of the last rock 'n' roll bands to play at the soon-to-close Thirsty Whale in River Grove will be Enuff 'Z' Nuff. ... After the final performances, from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m June 3-6, before the building is demolished on June 10, an all-out sale of the club's bar equipment, furniture and hanging pictures will be offered to the public."

    8. Miner, Lisa Friedman (2010-03-31). "Thirsty Whale hoping to make a splash in Algonquin". Daily Herald. Archived from the original on 2023-09-03. Retrieved 2023-09-03.

      The article notes: "Everyone asks owner Niko Kanakaris whether the new Thirsty Whale Bar & Grill in Algonquin is related to the famous River Grove rock club of the 1980s and ’90s. It’s not. But that doesn’t mean he’s not enjoying the name recognition. ... Overall: With a name like Thirsty Whale, you may harbor certain expectations walking through the door — especially if you’re hoping to re-create your old rock-venue days in River Grove. This Whale is a whole different species, but one that could be a nice place to dock for a cold beer and garlicky chicken wings."

    9. Shields, Todd (1996-03-13). "Amoco/McDonald's to beach "Whale"". River Grove Messenger. Archived from the original on 2023-09-03. Retrieved 2023-09-03.

      The article notes: "River Grove officials announced last week that the Thirsty Whale rock 'n' roll club, on the northwest corner of Grand Avenue and River Road, is scheduled to be demolished in favor of a gas station/fast-food restaurant. ... Tarpey said he believes the Thirsty Whale has been open since the early or mid-1970s. Before then, he said three restaurants occupied the building, which was built in the 1930s."

    10. Arnston, Guy C. (2009-09-30). "Thirsty Whale Reunion". Illinois Entertainer. Archived from the original on 2023-09-03. Retrieved 2023-09-03.

      The article notes: "It was more than 20 years ago that I last set foot inside the Thirsty Whale. The band was Holland, on the eve of their Atlantic Records release, Little Monsters. ... That’s what the Thirsty Whale was all about, loud rock music for the party people. Owner Jimmy DeCanio took his experience running the old Rusty Nail and the High Society disco on Belmont in Chicago and put it to good use at the corner of Grand and River Road in River Grove. What used to be the Red Steer, complete with oversized bull head outside, became the Thirsty Whale, home to live rock music from the era of Jerico, Pezband, and Sherwin Spector And Sparkle, to Cheap Trick, Survivor, and Off Broadway, and on to Holland, Paradoxx, Hammeron, Cuttlass, O’Dette, and Diamond Rexx, and then to the harder rock of the ’90s like Zoetrope and Trouble. Following a weekend of Enuff Z’Nuff, the last show at the Whale featured Radakka and Stonehenge on Sunday, June 2nd, 1996."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Thirsty Whale to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: certainly a significant amount of sources to support notability, but it may need to be rewritten or at least tagged with "sources exist" StartOkayStop (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as the nominator, based on the sources found above, I have no problem if this AFD is closed now as a Keep. But, as noted above, the article should be rewritten to include them. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:01, 7 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 List of mass shootings in the United States in 2023. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 DuPage County shooting[edit]

2023 DuPage County 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)

Fails WP:SUSTAINED. This can be compared to the Baltimore shooting a month later; while they had similar casualty counts, but much less response and controversy on the part of the Illinois shooting. Lettlerhello • contribs 18:32, 30 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! 19:26, 6 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 03:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ekatarina Velika (album)[edit]

Ekatarina Velika (album) (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 was blanked and redirected, but that has recently been reverted. The primary concern here is notability under WP:NALBUM; the album doesn't seem to meet any of the relevant criteria. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 15:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article does have enough information that article about album should have. Боки ✉ 00:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Appearing on the charts could be enough under WP:NALBUM but absent any other sourcing or the appearance of foreign language sources, all of the information that could feasibly be used to meet enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article is unsourced. I cannot find secondary sourcing to back up any of that extraneous information. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 14:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. How about a redirect Ekatarina Velika?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:21, 6 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! 23:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katharina Tschupp[edit]

Katharina Tschupp (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 subject has earned at least six caps for the Liechtenstein women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:59, 6 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Cartmell (actor)[edit]

James Cartmell (actor) (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)

An article with way too much puffery and too little meat. A few voice roles don't add up to notability; clearly the GNG isn't met, giving the complete lack of reliable secondary sources. The provided sources prove that he exists, but not that he is notable for anything, outside of the local newspaper or college newsletter. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete promotional with insufficient sources to demonstrate notability. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 16:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per below. Puffery has been addressed and sourcing is improved. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 07:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: rather than strike out votes by CU-confirmed socks, I just blanked them--there is no rationale for letting an AfD be overwhelmed by their comments. Feel free to peruse the history to see if I I removed any of them unjustly. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep numerous notable roles per WP:NACTOR. Voiced a titular character in a series, as well as voicing a main cast member in another. Also had various TV appearances and West End roles. – Meena • 10:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The sources indicate notability and he has had several main cast roles and various other appearances. The article has already been improved a lot by Meena (talk · contribs), and a lot of the concerns (such as the puffery) have been addressed and improved. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 12:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Satisfies WP:NACTOR criteria. Aside scores of other appearances and TV roles added to the article, Where's Wally? and Go, Dog. Go! are as well notable. Wikipractitioner (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't have much to add to what has been added to the other keep comments, only to say that being a lead voice actor in a few shows is more than "a few voice roles" and the initial reason for deleting ignores additional acting roles that were already noted in the article. Thanks to Meena (talk · contribs) for cleanup. Bias note: I am the original creator of the page. DJ Cane (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added the POV tag, based on the general thesis of this deletion discussion page proposal. However, it clearly has the citations o exist on Wikipedia and qualifies for notability. PickleG13 (talk) 09:34, 11 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Keysers[edit]

Christian Keysers (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 creator and subject are the same, and the article is below the threshold of notability for an academic Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. High citation count and pretty solid in the awards category. However, I really don't like the COI from the author. Mason (talk) 02:16, 10 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! 23:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Legends action figures (Mattel)[edit]

WWE Legends action figures (Mattel) (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 written like a advertisement and fails WP:GNG. Not sure why this was even created Summerslam2022(talk) 18:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC) (sock strike Liz Read! Talk! 02:36, 9 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall White[edit]

Marshall White (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 strongman athlete. Natg 19 (talk) 17:12, 6 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 Tommy Reilly (Scottish musician). as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm Tommy Reilly[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tommy Reilly (Scottish musician): Found and added an archive for that The Scotsman rating/review, but I couldn't find anything else to go with it. That review has been there at least since 2011, so the article hasn't been totally unsourced for most of its existence, but the one alone is not enough to meet notability standards. Note that I don't have access to any UK/Scotland-specific archives so more may be out there that I just can't see. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:39, 7 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 Wild Cherry (band). as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Play the Funk[edit]

Play the Funk (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 significant coverage of this album anywhere. Outside of an AllMusic review there's a single-sentence mention in the All Music Guide to Soul. Not enough to meet WP:GNG and the album doesn't seem to meet WP:NALBUM either. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 16:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wild Cherry (band): Found no additional coverage. For one of the fundamental one-hit wonder bands, I'm not too surprised if a random comp of theirs from decades later didn't garner much attention. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've also redirected Super Hits (Wild Cherry album) on the same grounds just now. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:48, 7 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Acres National High School[edit]

Golden Acres National High School (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:GNG, I could not find any coverage outside of a bill in the Senate relating to it and social media posts. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 16:07, 6 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 Draftify‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iain Grieve[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NRUGBY and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Rugby union, Botswana, United Kingdom, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak delete Nominator is incorrect here, as he passes WP:NRU with numerous appearances in notable leagues (I believe he is still playing also(, however this is no irrelevant as WP:GNG superseeds this now. A simple google search has brought up a number of hits on the subject, although the majority are just the usual mentions. There do seem to be a couple of interviews, but they are still a bit limited. I'm at very weak delete here, and if another editor was to find even a little bit more, I'd probably change to Keep. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is move to draft an option? He would pass WP:NRU and I am very confident local paper sources would put him into generally notable, but simply don't have the time to search it out myself. If not delete as the page as it stands isn't up to scratch. Skeene88 (talk) 10:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is an acceptable alternative. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:49, 11 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 2000 Rugby League World Cup qualifying. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Rugby League World Cup qualification – Pool B[edit]

2000 Rugby League World Cup qualification – Pool B (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)

Unreferenced and no new information that isn't on 2000 Rugby League World Cup qualification Mn1548 (talk) 14:35, 6 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 03:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Saucedo[edit]

Aaron Saucedo (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)

BLP article of an accused criminal which fails to meet WP:PERPETRATOR in any form. None of the victims are renowned, and no motivation has been established, so even if subject were convicted (and the trial isn't until next year), he would not qualify for a BLP. Article has been a magnet for heinous BLP violation, and we had to scrape out a lot of claims that he did the crimes of which he has not been convicted as well as a lot of material sourced to court filings. No other source of notability has been suggested for the subject, nor is any quickly found. Google search finds significant coverage for him only as the suspect (or hits that are clearly for other people of similar name), newspapers.com search of Arizona papers from the year of his birth to the year before his arrest find nothing, whether or not his middle name is included. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Arizona. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean we could draftify until Feb 2024 when the trial starts, but that's a few months way. I was going to say GNG is met, but PERP says not to make an article until the conviction. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as this completely violates BLP given the lack of an extant conviction, and as pointed out likely would fail as well even if a conviction occurs. The set of killings seems notable enough to be an article, which seems like the obvious next step here, necessarily stripping out all the biographical information on his suspect until/unless it becomes notable in the future. WilsonP NYC (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This used to be a different article. It was not always a BLP. See the edit history, or my !vote below. There are different methods to reverting and improving a previous version. I hope you'll be open to those. I also support deletion as one option to clear the slate. But a previous version might as well be the basis of a non-BLP in an article space about the event. JFHJr (㊟) 04:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Sorry for not being as clear as I could be. The article, which is now in the name of a living person, seems like it can’t continue to exist. I agree that much of the content is in fact worthy of being an article. I said that above sort of but could have been clearer about what I was voting for. If there’s a better way to officially register that as a vote I am all ears. Like a vote to clear and rename or something. WilsonP NYC (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm basically for that. A rename and gutted history. JFHJr (㊟) 01:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to something like Maryvale Street Shootings. Fact is that in a small area, 12 people were shot (9 fatally) over 10 months with no connection other than MO and description of assailant. That by me is notable. Even if "(n)one of the victims are renowned". Or notable. Plutonium27 (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be ok with a move as described. Oaktree b (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if moved (and I'm not saying I support it), article would have to be scrubbed of most or all of the information about the current subject, which makes up the bulk. Having seen versions of the article that pre-date the naming of the suspect and the change to make it an article about the suspect, it looks a lot like WP:NOTNEWS matter to me. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I think User:NatGertler needs to step back from this article (and its fate) entirely. Correcting an article with fake citations, and named for a suspect still on remand 6 years later can engender frustration, I'm sure. What would be the objection to a new editor stripping it back under a new name and keeping an eye on as the case progresses (I'll do it, with some technical help)? I've no irons in this fire at all except that I would like to believe that it has not yet come to pass that multiple deaths are no longer notable when happening to the non-renowned in shitty neighbourhoods. Plutonium27 (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So because I've noted the BLP problems with the article in the past... I should be excluded from expressing concern over BLP issues in the future? That's curious logic at best. No, I don't feel any need from continuing to note problems. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If moved, would you also support a deep revert? How about WP:OVERSIGHT for all the intervening versions? It would look like a gaping maw in the edit history. If it's deleted (with redirects) as a BLP, I would support starting a fresh article under its old name, with a previous version antedating the BLP vios. JFHJr (㊟) 04:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did the revert. It's not perfect. But it brings this article closer to BLP compliance. JFHJr (㊟) 04:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Move with oversight to last WP:BLP compliant version. This version might be close, or not deep enough, but okay to work with. Oversight on so many intervening edits is ugly. This article cannot stand today as a BLP (see WP:PERPETRATOR and related policies and guidelines). The events are notable, and deserve an edit history clean of continuous and repeated BLP violations. This problem will continue through the trial process. This page could use some protection, if the closing admin is so inclined. JFHJr (㊟) 03:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retitle or Delete At the very least, this page shouldn't be named after Aaron Saucedo. PickleG13 (talk)
  • @PickleG13 I highly agree it should be retitled to 2015-2016 Maryvale Street Shootings or something like that...
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G11 — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 13:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Bernard[edit]

Zachary Bernard (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, article also promotional, don't know if quite qualifies for CSD G11.

[13] is the only WP:RS I found, other than that, [14] is more about the company than the subject himself. NotAGenious (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Gronk Oz kindly added a G11 tag at the same time, didn't know that Twinkle would still send the nomination. Anyways. NotAGenious (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Gronk Oz. Needs a complete rewrite. Wikishovel (talk) 13:43, 6 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 1976 World Championships in Athletics. Nominator stood correct to redirect this one. No objections are expected for the ATD they propose. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands at the 1976 World Championships in Athletics[edit]

Netherlands at the 1976 World Championships in Athletics (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 "1976 World Championships" only had one event, and all competitors and results are listed there. This article can easily be redirected to 1976 World Championships in Athletics without any loss of information, and the separate "country at this event" articles are hardly notable subjects for this event. I redirecte it while keeping the categories, but was reverted, so AfD can decide the best course of action. Fram (talk) 09:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1976 World Championships in Athletics to match all other pages in Category:Nations at the 1976 World Championships in Athletics BrigadierG (talk) 10:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or not delete WildCherry06 11:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe this should be discussed for all represented countries not just for this single stub article. – Editør (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 1976 World Championships in Athletics as unnecessary, given that there was only 1 event. I would support redirecting all other "X at the 1976 World Championships in Athletics" articles there too. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1976 World Championships in Athletics Wouter1718 (talk) 09:58, 8 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. Well, some COI editing has certainly muddied the water a fair bit here, but of course COI is not in and of itself a reason to delete. That said, the clear consensus among non-COI editors is that the amount of reference material is not sufficient to sustain this article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Nakazono[edit]

Lisa Nakazono (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)

General notability is unclear, and the page has been plagued by POV fancruft since its inception. Unless a properly sourced biography can be put together (for example, she was married, and went by the name Nakazono Węgłowska for some period), I think the page would be better deleted. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not finding much from a BEFORE but I expect most good sources will be in Japanese if they exist. Lack of even trivial coverage from english-speaking outlets makes me think it is unlikely that GNG is met. I would also like to confirm that I have read the below discussion as of September 11 and disapprove of the bludgeoning. I believe the sheer quantity of WP:ROUTINE mentions of her name being drudged up without any high quality in-depth coverage affirms the lack of notability. I would also clarify that I've read the arguments regarding her being signed by Sony and am unconvinced. She is signed by Aniplex who is a subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment Japan who is a subsidiary of Sony themselves. Importantly, she is NOT signed by a child label of Sony Music which would pass WP:MUSICBIO - Aniplex bypasses that as it is not actually owned by a bigger parent record label, just the Japanese entertainment division itself. There's a lot of noise here, but all votes aside from those with a COI have voted delete so far.
I urge the reviewer to not mistake WP:BLUDGEONING for a balanced discussion. BrigadierG (talk) 10:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. I bought her CDs in Japan. It says her 2nd album was recorded at Sony Music Studio over four days from November 24th to 27th, 2009.
2. Sony Music runs her official web site.
https://www.sonymusic.co.jp/artist/lisanakazono/
It says Copyright 2021 Sony Music Entertainment (Japan) Inc. All rights reserved. Copyright 2021 Sony Music Marketing United Inc. All rights reserved.
Therefore, this her web site is owned by Sony Music.
3. Aniplex is a child label of Sony Music.
Sony Music treats Aniplex is their child label on the official web site.
[15]https://www.sme.co.jp/en/pressrelease/news/
[16]https://www.sme.co.jp/en/company/groupcompanies/
4. Aniplex, Inc. (株式会社アニプレックス, Kabushiki-gaisha Anipurekkusu) is a 100% owned subsidiary of Sony Music. Also, Aniplex is a company within the Sony Music Group that plans and produces video works, mainly animation.
The reason why Ms. Nakazono released her CD on the Aniplex label is that the title of the CD, "Chopin de GHIBLI" is a fusion of classical music and animation, GHIBLI. (CD says GHBLI in Chopin Style Arrangement).
Therefore, the content of her CD is classical music mainly based on GHIBLI animation, and it was published by the Aniplex label.
5. The product numbers of her two CDs are "SVWC-7615" and "SVWC-7672", and they are definitely sold by Sony Music Distribution Inc. Sanobunji (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)— Sanobunji (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • [Comment from IP] This page should not deleted by unreasonable complaints. Please do not say something based on your speculation.
(IP user accuses Imaginatorium above of having incorrectly given the hyphenated "Nakazono-Węgłowska" as official name) --Summary & collapse by Kiyoweap (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content (repeated from talk)
:1. When we edited her name correctly, the photo of 2017, @Imaginatoriumsaid "It appears that tis was her name in 2017. This is not a promotion page." It's absolutely wrong. Her name was already Lisa Nakazono.
Here is an evidence.
https://www.pccij.or.jp/polish-festival-roppongi-hills-2017/
She was called Lisa Nakazono in 2017.
2. When we explained about the photo which was used this page before, @Imaginatorium said the photo was taken in Poland but it is wrong. The photo was taken in Tokyo, Japan
This was the Polish festival held in Roppongi Hills O-YANE PLAZA, Tokyo, Japan.
Here is an evidence.
https://www.pccij.or.jp/polish_festival_2016_en/
https://www.pccij.or.jp/polish-festival-roppongi-hills-2017/
Please do not say something based on your speculation.

--2001:268:C2D1:B31:24EF:9A06:FA9B:509C (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is relevant here. Your response here should be to show why this article is notable in line with WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO by showing significant coverage in reliable secondary sources sources. BrigadierG (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything wrong on the page. I think the reliable sources are on the page. 2001:268:C2D1:B31:8431:8AD4:472C:7033 (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lisa, you can't use your own page as a "reliable source". Most "sources" on your page just link to your personal promotion webpage. English Wikipedia needs substantial articles (can be in Japanese) to establish you are notable and not just a local artist that has no real notability. There are no news articles talking about your life story or anything. Even searching google news in Japanese and excluding links to Wikipedia, there are only 2 very non-notable list blogs that seem to mention anything about you; and only your name with no details. I'm honestly looking to try to find substantial sources (other than your personal site) to fill out the biography with reliable information, but so far I haven't found anything. Nesnad (talk) 10:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am NOT Lisa, I am her friend and also one of her fans. 2001:268:C2C0:414A:D4E2:D2F7:F198:A5ED (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can only find hits in Japanese about pianos, nothing for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia page describing Lisa Nakazono's musical career is genuine and does not contain any irrelevant information or advertisements. I am of the opinion that this page best summarizes who she is and her musical career. As a huge fan of Lisa, all I can say is that she is just taking a short break from her music (due in part to the Covid-19 pandemic), and she will be back in the future. Thus, I hope this page will remain as it is so that when she returns, every fan of hers will be able to remember her more easily. Lisa is a great musician. Daniel Limster (talk) 04:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)— Daniel Limster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I completely agree with you. 2001:268:C2C9:1865:49E2:21C2:F937:6657 (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although there seems to be a troubling use of sockpuppet accounts or friends or something to falsely prop up the page, I can attest to Lisa Nakazono being a real musician. She has indeed released some music with Sony EDIT correction: with the label know as Aniplex or something and has been in a few local festivals. If that's enough, the page should stay. I am not one to decide if that is notable enough or not for Wikipedia, although maybe I can try to find more sources to find out if she is or not. So far there doesn't seem to be a lot of notable sources to establish much about her. I do think that all the IP users and new accounts made to justify her page, and try to shape her Wiki page etc, are a bit troubling. If she is notable enough, she should let the page organically grow from tangible sources about her past and present instead of personally trying to get involved with shaping things to this extent. Wikipedia isn't for personal promotion. Nesnad (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know about her friends, but as an avid music lover, I frequently look up my favorite musicians like Sumini Hayato or Yukie Nishimura on the Internet to see if there's anything new about them. And Lisa has always been on the list. I am not comparing anybody and I believe doing so is considered to be what's similar to blasphemy in the musical arena as a musician's talent is rather a subjective issue and is to be judged by the listeners.
    For whatever reason, I am so fond of her music and listen to her music whenever time allows me to. You cannot and should not accuse someone else's comments of what's written in her defense. That's not what this website is all about.
    BTW, I don't think Chopin or Tchaikovsky is not producing any 'tangible' performances any longer, but how come their pages have not been deleted yet? Or should we delete those pages since they are falsely using Wikipedia for their 'promotions'? Daniel Limster (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)— Daniel Limster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


Off-topic comments moved from top of page

Extended content
*Note (from proposer Imaginatorium)

These comments were in the wrong place, messing up formatting here for example, and actually have nothing to do with the discussion on this page, which is about reasons to delete or not delete, based on Wikipedia principles, not fan passion. Does anyone object if I move all of these to the Talk page (Talk:Lisa Nakazono) of the article? Imaginatorium (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I honestly don't see anything wrong with this profile picture being used on the page. The original copyright owner has done it correctly by relinquish the rights to the picture and got it approved on Wikicommons. Furthermore, it is the agreement from the artist herself. The name Lisa Nakazono is used during that Polish Festival in Japan and not Lisa Nakazono Wengloaska and there are many sources from that event to proof that fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HayashiMichiKimi (talk • contribs) 12:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. I don't see anything wrong there. 2001:268:C2D1:B31:8431:8AD4:472C:7033 (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The photo is fine, the article will likely be deleted unless we can find proper sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I looked at the Japanese Wikipedia article (ja:中園理沙) using Google Translate[17] and didn't see any references I thought established notability. She certainly seems like she should be notable but should isn't enough. She's been on many broadcasts.
I encourage others who know the Japanese music scene to look at her Japanese Wikipedia article in case I missed something.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: While I was invited here by a note on my talk page, I am unable to comment on the substance of this issue because I am currently topic banned from BLPs. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Ms. Nakazono and/or her friends visiting this discussion:
We have rules that govern article retention. In particular, refer to the detailed information in these guidelines: WP:BIO, WP:RS, and WP:COI.
WP:COI: Ms. Nakazono and those associated with her are not allowed to edit her biography. This is to protect Wikipedia's integrity against self-interested editing.
WP:BIO: The article has to demonstrate that Ms. Nakazono is notable as defined by WP:BIO above; you may disagree with those notability criteria but they're the rules of this website.
WP:RS: Any claims this article makes about Ms. Nakazono have to be backed up with citations to references that meet the WP:RS guideline.
Presently, this article does not meet our notability requirements based on the references in the article.
I'm sure Ms. Nakazono is a very good musician. If it's any consolation, most of the world's very good musicians aren't notable by our rules. They have not gotten the substantial, in-depth coverage required.
Ultimately, notability on Wikipedia is more about vagaries of media coverage by reliable sources than merit. We're an encyclopaedia diligently compiled by a group of amateur volunteers. We're compiling information from around the world for our articles; we're not forming or imposing our own opinions.
I'm sorry I have to tell you and your supporters this; I sense this will come as a disappointment. Please don't take it personally - this is just a really big website, and we're not Japanese music industry experts.
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @A. B. I am truly sorry, I made a typo. 2001:268:C2C0:414A:F024:CB30:202F:9C61 (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I wish I had a friend like you! I don’t know if those performances count towards notability. Perhaps they would if our rules were different. Her record is impressive. Our rules lean on what others say about her in reliable sources as defined in WP:RS.
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count)< A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much dear @A. B..
I sincerely appreciate your kindness, understanding, and support.
Please let me know what I can do more.
Thank you so much again. 2001:268:C2C0:414A:F024:CB30:202F:9C61 (talk) 03:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @A. B.,
Thank you so much for your sincere message.
I understand and truly appreciate you told me that.
Please let me explain to you.
Yes, I am her friend and one of her fans. This is true. Actually, Ms. Nakazono didn't edit anything on the article and this page. She has little two kids and she is too busy to check all here and do something here.
I, her friends and fans who love her have been trying to edit the pages and protect her from some problems.
As for me, What I am doing this of oy own will. She didn't ask me to do this.
Pleaae let me show the proof of her notability here.
In June 2013, she was invited to perform a concert in the Republic of Poland.
http://chopinfestiwal.wilkomirski.org.pl/?grp=205&dzial=195
︎In 2015, she was appointed cultural director of the Czech Chamber of Commerce in Japan, and she is committed to international cultural exchange.
https://dukesoftware.appspot.com/pianist/Lisa_Nakazono/
︎In April 2016, she gave a concert with a singer at the Embassy of the Czech Republic in Tokyo.
https://www.cccij.com/inpage/news-2016-03-28/
︎In August 2017, she gave a piano recital in Prague, Czech Republic.
https://kazelfacorp.com/culture/lisanakazono2017/
︎In May 2018, she gave a piano recital in Beijing, China and served as a master class teacher.
https://www.sohu.com/a/231352444_410931
︎In August 2019, she served as a judge for the Excellence Cup International Music Competition in Taiwan.
https://www.music-taiwan.com/zh-tw/piano/introduction/reviewers/past
Please let me know if there is something I need to do. 2001:268:C2C0:414A:F024:CB30:202F:9C61 (talk) 02:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out we have additional rules for musicians that provide alternate ways to establish notability. I’m sorry I overlooked this earlier. See WP:MUSICBIO - perhaps one of these fits? In particular, has she made two or more albums with Sony Music?
Note: I’m signing off in a few minutes and will return tomorrow.
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @A. B.
Thank you so much.
Yes, she made Two albums with Sony Music.
Her discography on Sony Music.
https://www.sonymusic.co.jp/artist/lisanakazono/discography/
Thank you so much. 2001:268:C2C0:414A:F024:CB30:202F:9C61 (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lisa et al, I can't find any Google news hits for you when searching your name in Japanese. Nothing. Two references on blogs in 2010, but they simply mention your name that is all. I'm really honestly trying. I think you are a great musician, but skill is not notability on English Wikipedia. I lean toward inclusion when we can, but none of those links establish Wikipedia notability maybe, and for sure wouldn't work as sources for biographical data. (Further the kazelfacorp link posts some of the same photos that you claimed were family photos on Wikimedia commons. So is it run by your family or was that a false claim on Wikimedia commons?) Do you have any (non-blog) newspaper/magazine interviews that go into details about your life and history to work as a source? That'd be quite helpful, Nesnad (talk) 03:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable per WP:MUSICBIO - 2 albums with a major record label per above.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have stricken my “keep” per the running argument below.
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 12:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stop droning on and on about the label. If a CD is put out under the "Aniplex" label owned by Sony Music Entertainment then it should be considered major enough, period.
Also NMUSIC Criterion #1 is actually probably satisifed also, since she has been covered in multiple trade mags and newspaper[s] as listed on her website,[25]
I don't reside in Japan (so no easy access to back issue material), but I've vetted the existence of a piece in Chopin monthly[26] and pieces in Piano monthly. [27] Also the interview with the Piano mag had led to her obtaining her debut CD gig, according to a piece in H!P magazine issued by the Kanagawa Shimbun Company[28]
Nesnad's Google news search is a far, far cry from a catch-all of Japanese media coverage. The result set from that tool being nil does not prove nonexistence. According to the artist several pieces about her, her CD, or her recital appeared in Kanagawa Shimbun newspaper.--Kiyoweap (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your support dear @Kiyoweap.
I can't thank you enough. 2001:268:C2C0:414A:D8AF:C175:C038:9BDB (talk) 08:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, like I said... If Anipex counts for notability, then I have no problem. I just think saying she is on Sony Music is factually wrong. If a name mention in a trade industry journal is enough to establish notability, I'm all ok. I am an inclusionist. I like to keep material. I just wasn't sure if some random minor label with no google hits was enough for notability. I am fine if it is, it just feels a bit like a stretch so I was just worried, that's all. Nesnad (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nesnad is not a genuine inclusionist if he keeps twisting facts so that the conditions for meeting MUSICBIO appears less than satisfied. and that coverage amounts to "name mention"s.
His saying she is on Sony Music is factually wrong is disinformation AFAIC, and bizarre.
The Aniplex label is Sony-owned.
Sony Music website still carries her profile as artist including concert updates to 2010[29] and media coverage to 2008[30] for additional indication she was no stranger but a Sony signee and affiliate.
Nesnad Nakazono's website presumed to know that Most "sources" on your page just link to your personal promotion webpage" but in fact je overlooked Nakazono's weblist of useable magazine and newspaper sourcing,[31]
Now he wants to minimize his oversight as being mere "name mention"s. But this is contrary to fact.
The "Micchaku repo 密着レポートPart3" piece means that the Chopin monthly magazine ran a 3-part profile of her, engaging in something akin to embedded reporting staying close by her nearly around the clock.
Such pieces must be assumed to be non-trivial and meeting the MUSICBIO criterion.--Kiyoweap (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely appreciate your help.
Please let me convey the source of this passage below in the article,
Her concert tour "Fantastic Chopin 2010" that year commemorated the 200th anniversary of the birth of Chopin."
Here is the link.
https://www.sonymusic.co.jp/artist/lisanakazono/info/345572
Thank you so much again. 2001:268:C2CB:453F:70E8:9086:89B:E757 (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lisa et al, let me reiterate that there is no personal malice felt toward you. I wish you all the best. That said, there seems to be a misunderstanding on how sources work. A list of concerts only works as a source for the fact she had a tour. Without an interview or something it would be original research to say that the purpose was to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the birth of Chopin etc. It does work to confirm she was on tour though, that's great. Do you have any interviews with her in reputable magazines/newspapers we could use? Nesnad (talk) 02:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel a little personally attacked? Do we say all subsidiaries are signed by the parent company? Seems odd to me. Do we say because HMV listed her she is signed with HMV, too? I could find many artists in the Chopin (a very minor trade magazine) magazine that have no articles on English Wikipedia. Let me reiterate, I have no problem with Ms. Nakazono being listed or not on Wikipedia. I am not fighting against her inclusion. But I also want to be realistic, and making fake claims about her levels of fame just seems silly. You seem to have positioned yourself as her defender, so go for it, but I am neither attacking nor defending her. I am just pointing to the fact that her record is not produced by Sony Music and her articles (and the one you mention was written by herself, right?) are not in a major publication. That level of fame I have personally achieved too, and yet I do not have (nor want!) a Wikipedia page, that's the only reason I hesitate to think she is notable enough. But once again, I have no problem if she is fairly decided to be notable enough for Wikipedia. Anyway, the notability is for level-headed Wikipedians to fairly decide. Nesnad (talk) 02:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop making statements based on your subjectivity, speculation, and preconceptions. I am a close friend of her, but at the same time, I as someone who has watched the Japanese classical music industry for a very long time, The music magazine Chopin is not a minor magazine. It is one of the major, popular and historical Japanese classical music magazines. There is probably no professor at a music university in Japan who doesn't know about this magazine. This magazine has interviewed not only many major artists in Japan, but also many top international artists, And they have been featured on the magazine's cover and in interviews many times. It would be desrespectful to underestimate this magazine as being minor based on your own subjectivity and preconceptions, and to make disrespectful comments about her who was interviewed closely three times by this magazine. And you said "and you write her articles (and the one you mention was written by herself, right?) are not in a major publication." is wrong. She did not write by herself, but the magazine itself clearly wrote that it had closely interviewed Lisa Nakazono. And there were three close interviews with her.
Here is the proof.
https://www.chopin.co.jp/media/chopin_backnumber/a723
https://www.chopin.co.jp/media/chopin_backnumber/a722
https://www.fujisan.co.jp/product/1251/b/237105/
Therefore, saying things based on your speculation is disrespectful to the person who made that statement. 2001:268:C2CB:453F:BD38:E84C:7C12:A22E (talk) 08:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't be so aggressive. I just got mixed up I guess. She wrote one of those articles linked, right? Maybe the piano monthly one? But anycase, my point is it is an industry article written in 2010 or something. I don't mean it as negative on Ms. Nakazono. For example, in the top link you sent there is an article about an artist way more famous in Japan (being on NHK etc) that have no English Wikipedia page. I think notability isn't just trying to force yourself onto English Wikipedia. But like I've said many times, I have no problem with her keeping her page. I am just trying to make things realistic and at the same time I keep repeating my request for sources like magazines/newspapers to use in her article as sources for the content that currently exists and instead I keep getting "holier than thou" arguments about her being famous, when she is not. Once again, I don't care if she has or doesn't have an English Wikipedia page. I am not fighting against her having one. I just want to have sources for claims in the article. Those sources will help the argument for notability, and regardless would help the article in general. Nesnad (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources (links) are actually reputable and very well known in Japan. It is like the Hall of Fame for artists in who have made great achievements in their career. Just like we have the Grammy Awards in the U.S, they have their Japanese equipment in their country. HayashiMichiKimi (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to say equivalent, not equipment, sorry! HayashiMichiKimi (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)— HayashiMichiKimi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
What are you going on about? Are you trying to claim Ms. Nakazono has won a Japanese Grammy Award? Or you just mean in a magazine that covered the Grammy Awards? What awards are you talking about and how does it have to do with anything? You do realize not everyone is from the United States, so no need to talk to us like we don't know Japan as if you are the expert and we know nothing about Japan. Also! I've asked you several times and you have ignored me, but I'm asking for sources to support claims in her article and you keep trying to claim she is super famous, when she isn't. Maybe she is notable enough for an article, maybe she isn't. That's not what I'm asking for. Are you reading my messages? I'm asking for links to newspaper or magazine articles interviewing her about her life or any other things we can use as reputable sources in the English Wikipedia article. Because even if she is deemed notable, currently almost everything in the article is not from reliable sources required on English Wikipedia. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I investigated whether Lisa Nakazono is indeed registered with Sony Music. And I confirmed that she is indeed registered with Sony Music. This link is the Official Sony Music website, and from here you will find a list of all artist names registered with Sony Music.
Please have a look at the link below and click "50音からさがす"(Searching from fifty Japanese syllables) → click "ナ"(Na)　
https://www.sonymusic.co.jp/artistlist/
I searched for her name 中園理沙 and she is indeed listed here.
If anyone still objects, I will ask Sony Music directly on the phone to make it sure.
As a side note, Aniplex is a 100% owned subsidiary of Sony Music. The reason why she released her CD on the Aniplex label is that the title of the CD, "Chopin de GHIBLI" is a fusion of classical music and animation, GHIBLI. (CD says GHBLI in Chopin Style Arrangement).
Aniplex is a company within the Sony Music Group that plans and produces video works, mainly animation. Therefore, the content of her CD is classical music mainly based on GHIBLI animation, and it was published by the Aniplex label. Also, the product numbers of her two CDs are "SVWC-7615" and "SVWC-7672", and they are definitely sold by Sony Music Distribution Inc. Sanobunji (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So because I can find her on the HMV site that shows she is sold by HMV too, so does that mean she is "registered" by HMV, too? Aniplex is a subsidiary company, it isn't fair to say she is on the Sony Music label, when she isn't. Maybe Aniplex is enough to be notable, maybe it isn't. Keep in mind though, that a subsidiary is NOT the same as the parent company. Don't try to inflate Ms. Nakazono into something she is not. If she is notable that should be enough, no need to try to make her into a fake "something" in order to justify a page or something. Nesnad (talk) 05:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop casting aspersions. See WP:ASPERSION. People are actively trying to sort out Ms. Nakazono's notability - don't antagonize them. It's counterproductive and not very nice.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me express my gratitude again. 2001:268:C2CB:453F:70E8:9086:89B:E757 (talk) 02:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps User:HayashiMichiKimi's analogy to a Hall of Fame or the Grammy was inflated. But this beside the point. WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1 for media coverage does not demand that Piano or Chopin magazine appearances have prestige tantamount to a Grammy nomination.
Stop egging her on as if she's obliged to demonstrate these mags to be super-duper major, because its pointless and a waste of time.
The award Nakazono won was the "1st Elena Richter [International Piano] Competition" in 2008, held by the Tokyo International Association of Artists.[32] probably only borrowing the name of instructor Elena Richter at Moscow Conservatory.[33] Not Grammy-like status, so not relevant to criterion #8 based on award.
Again, Nesnad's sense of what's "realistic" is out of touch with reality.
He was given links to back issues[34][35][36] that lists content, enough to confirm such articles as "Nakazono Risa: Close [surveillance reportage] until her CD debut 中園理沙 CDデビューまでに密着！" have been published to establish notability for the purpose of discussion right now.
It is not realistic for him to demand links providing him access to copyright content from these back issues during the session of this discussion. People aren't going to hustle and haul their asses to purchase or subscribe and type out or upload scans for your benefit.
Also, I've already inserted a freemag I've found online called H!P magazine[37] issued by Kanagawa Shimbun Company into the Nakazono wikipage, which serves as verifiable source on a number of points.--Kiyoweap (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kiyoweap, do you have a conflict of interest? You seem to be very dedicated to defending Ms. Nakazono which seems like her other sockpuppets. Not saying you are! I am just curious, please confirm you have no conflict of interest. If you do, please inform us to be fair. At least the other users have confirmed they have a conflict of interest. I am not saying you do, just want to confirm if you do or don't. If you read my comments, I am NOT saying she is not notable or is notable. I am not trying to "fight against her" or something. I am just asking for newspapers/magazines which help to add sources to the article. I am trying to boost the article if possible, and you are acting like I am fighting against Ms. Nakazono's page. I am just being realistic. Part of which is pointing out just because she was in a minor magazine in 2009 doesn't automatically make her notable. If you notice the person in the exact same section (米山優香) on the page next to Ms. Nakazono doesn't even have a Japanese Wikipedia page, nor of course an English one. Just being in a minor magazine doesn't automatically make you notable. I'm not saying Ms. Nakazono isn't or is! I'm just saying that claiming she is a Grammy award winner (is not) or that she is on the Sony Music label (is not) and other things just work to inflate something that isn't true. If she is notable, fine, but don't try to make her into something she is not. Nesnad (talk) 05:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that what you are doing is slander against user Kiyoweap, I feel Kiyoweap just wants to try to be logical, sincere, and sort out her notability. Also, that it is a slander against other users here to call them (who said they are Ms. Nakazono's friends and fans) her sock puppets, a terribly rude, childish & condescending term. I also believe that what you are doing is slandering Ms. Nakazono.
I read people's messages here, they just simply said they are Ms. Nakazono's friends or fans to convey the facts and proof such as links & sources'.
No one here has a conflict of interest.
Also, I have read everything you have said here, and it seems that you are intentionally trying to make all of Ms. Nakazono's images appear negative. And even when people show some information (links) that does not meet your wishes, you completely keep ignoring them.
For example, you continue to baselessly write about the magazines in which she appeared, the concerts she appeared in, all of which are very minor and small, and you intentionally try to instill a negative image of her in people's minds.
And you said that because the name of the person listed next to Ms. Nakazono is not famous, Ms. Nakazono is not worthy of notability either. I can not follow your line of logic. However, let's apply your logic here. In the Sendai Classical Festival article where she is listed　https://sendai.keizai.biz/headline/1466/, next to Ms. Nakazono there is the name of a famous harpsichordist named Ms. Mayako Sone 曽根麻矢子, and she is listed on Wikipedia. (Japanese version and French version)
Also, at the 2017 Matsumoto Piano Festival, where she performed, the world-famous pianist Ingrid Fuzjko Hemming was featured in the exact same section where Ms. Nakazono's photo was posted. https://naganoart-plus.net/?p=6733
So, according to your logic, Ms. Nakazono is famous because there is a famous person listed next to her or in the exact same section. Is this correct? Sanobunji (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But you are one of the ones that feels like a sockpuppet. I'm not saying you are, but all of her "supporters" are only focused on her and attack anyone who disagrees, I'm honestly a bit frustrated by that. That feels like (not claiming it is that way I have no way to know, just saying it feels like) classic sockpuppet behavior. Why is it slander to say Ms. Nakazono isn't famous? She isn't. I'm not asking for newspapers and magazines to look down on her, I'm asking so that I can add information to the article that doesn't read like an advertisement, but I can't add content with out reliable sources. Tokyo has many people that are in minor magazines that have no Wikipedia article. That's a fact. I'm not saying she doesn't desereve it or she does, but the fact that all you new users pop up with the same kind of "oh she's so famous blah blah" logic makes me feel like you are either her friends with a conflict of interest or you are simply her. It just feels weird. So Lisa et al, please calm down. You aren't super famous, but that's not a bad thing. Don't inflate yourself to be more than you are (for example you aren't famous just because you performed at a festival with a famous person) and just try to logically look at the way things are. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 11:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everything what you said above is just a speculation based on your prejudice.
I am just an elderly man who loves music and works in the financial sector.
I agree you are free to think Ms. Nakazono is not famous. However, you don't have right to say anything without proof such as "You aren't super famous. Don't inflate yourself to be more than you are."
Did Ms. Nakazono say that she is a super famous? Or some people who said that here? Where is the proof?
I can not find that statement anywhere.
What you are saying above is an abusive attack on Ms. Nakazono's character. 2001:268:C2C4:66A:ADB5:C912:E245:8860 (talk) 14:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is me who left the comment above, and I forgot to log in. I am new to here.
Okay, you assume that I am her freind with a conflict of interest or her.
Actually, I am her fan. My daughter is her close friend. I do not need to hide anything here. I came here from my daughter, because she feels so scared you attacked her and Ms. Nakazono relentlessly so many times here. I thought I should be in front of my daughter and Ms. Nakazono.
Also, it seems like you want Ms. Nakazono to read your message to damage her badly, but she lives in her husband's home country which can not access Wikipedia, Google, Facebook, etc. I am SO GLAD that Ms. Nakazono can not access this page, Sanobunji (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually no need to hear from Ms. Nakazono. The less bias the better. I just felt a lot of bias so it felt like you were maybe her. Please don't let your feelings for your friend cloud your judgement. Wikipedia articles need a neutral point of view. Discussing if she is notable or not is not an attack on her. Calm down, not worth being so upset about. English Wikipedia just needs clear reputable sources and has notability requirements. That's all we are discussing. It does not help when users come in here and claim that she has the equivalent of a Grammy award or performed at Japan's biggest music festival and other weird untrue things. Just the facts, if she is notable enough I'm happy. I like to include things. But I am also a realist. Lets stay realistic. Thanks, Nesnad (talk) 06:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not here to play mind game with you. Sanobunji (talk) 08:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You told me that we need a neutral discussion here. I deeply agree. So I would like to say the same words to you. You should stop your negative biases against her, twisting the logic, and baseless slander.
No one said she performed at Japanese "biggest" music festival here.
People just said 仙台クラシックフェスティバルSendai Music festival she performed is ONE OF THE biggest CLASSICAL MUSIC festival in Japan". That's not wrong. Sanobunji (talk) 08:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I quote from above: "It is one of the biggest and famous music festival in Japan." Yes, I was told that, not some negative bias or whatever aggressive feelings you want to put on me. Please don't twist the facts. I'm glad she had a chance to perform at Sendai Music Festival, that can be one thing Wikipedians can consider when deciding if she is notable or not. I don't think just playing music at a 30,000ish person festival guarantees notability on English Wikipedia but that's a fair thing to mention! So as long as we stay realistic, I have no problem. Nesnad (talk) 09:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User Nesnad still keeps casting aspersions on people. Please stop it.Sanobunji (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)— Sanobunji (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Nesnad is just far too busy trying to establish other people as "sockpuppets" (probably meant WP:MEATPUPPETs), as he has now accused me of being.

If I were such a crony of the artist that her wiki page was all-important, I would clearly pay a few bucks out of my own pocket to purchase those back issues and fortify the sourcing. There is really no chance of me doing this, but if someone in Japan got access to the micchaku close-reporting profiles on Piano or Chopin magazine issues [or the interview on Piano monthly] and edited the Japanese wiki, I might be persuaded to translate.
I am neither friend nor fan of the artist. In fact, I had completely forgotten who this Lisa Nakazono was, but was alerted to the discussion bcz I had edited the page back in 2014, acting on PNT request (here, under "Lisa Nakazono-Węgłowska").
Nesnad wants to cast innuendos about my associations, but actually, he's the one who just keeps wasting our time throwing red herrings like "She wrote one of those articles linked, right?" which can only refer to a multipart travelogue series she wrote for a separate magazine called Gokujō no piano, as mentioned on the wikipage. Not the two profiles in the two magazines aforementioned.

And while acting in the capacity of a (non-paying) disinterested party, I have added a couple of free sources online into the wiki, namely the H!P freemag aforementined and the Gazeta Babicka in Polish. So perhaps you will now knock it off with your mantra that media coverage being otherwise nonexistent.--Kiyoweap (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)correction Kiyoweap (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So aggressive, let's calm down, we are all just discussing the possible notability of a minor pianist. Not worth getting so upset about. I didn't say you were a sockpuppet, I asked if you had a conflict of interest. I am glad you don't! So many others are biased in the discussion, so I'm glad you aren't. I have wrote many articles in magazines and have had articles written about me, not sure why you use that as a mark toward notability but I am glad your aggression felt toward me has helped inspire you to get newsletters and free magazines as sources and stuff. The more sources, the better! Thanks. We are still kind of sidetracked though, I think our discussion is about her notability. If you still feel like editing the article (I was waiting for the discussion to play out or until substantial sources showed up) please remove the "fan advertisement" feel and reduce or remove the Japanglish. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ms. Lisa Nakazono is mentioned in YAMAHA Corporation 's business report.
ヤマハ株式会社第186期報告書　(2010年)
Please see page 41.　
https://www.yamaha.com/ja/ir/business/pdf/repo-2010.pdf
It says:
Yamaha Ginza Building opened on February 26th. On the day of the event, after the ribbon cutting ceremony, pianist Lisa Nakazono performed at the portal on the first floor.
ヤマハ銀座ビルが2月26日にグランドオープン
当日はテープカット・セレモニーの後、一階ポータルにてピアニスト中園理沙さんによる演奏も行われました。
This ceremony was held in Feburuary 26, 2010. Sanobunji (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. English Wikipedia doesn't like name mentions only when trying to establish notability though. You'll notice even the president/chief executive officer​ of Yamaha on page 1 of your link (梅村充) doesn't have a Japanese Wikipedia page, and even if he did he doesn't have an English one. Notability isn't just having your name listed somewhere or something. The best sources you can find are long interviews in reputable magazines/newspapers etc that help to establish facts about her and give things to be used as a source instead of just trying to reference her personal promotion webpage etc. Thanks for your effort. Nesnad (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You reacted exactly as I expected. I know that no matter what I show you, you will always complain. The Yamaha Ginza Opening Ceremony by Yamaha Corporation was important and worthy of mentioning in their business report. As you can see here, the Asahi Shimbun 朝日新聞 on February 26, 2010 treated the opening ceremony of the Yamaha Ginza Building as an extra edition 号外, which meant that the Asahi Shimbun positioned it as an event of high interest in Japan. Ms. Lisa Nakazono performed at this event and her name and photo are listed here.
朝日新聞号外　Asahishimbun extra edition February 26, 2010.
You can see the scan of extra edition here,　
http://www.risa-nakazono.com/concert/schedule2010.html
I just try to convey the fact. Sanobunji (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's high time this deletion attempt is declared failed, with keep made the outcome.

The criterion of major label is met since she signed 2CDs with Aniplex which is Sony owned. I see that A. B. voted "keep" ("2 albums with a major record label per above.") on this.

It has been reported in media that "[In her 4th year in college] she received an offer from the Sony Music label to record an album (wytwórni muzycznej Sony Music propozycję nagrania płyty)" in the Polish "Gazette"[38] which I already told this table I've added.

So let's make this the last call for anyone besides Nesnad to raise his hand and say Aniplex is not really Sony. Otherwise the debate closes with the deletionists' motion defeated. --Kiyoweap (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC) Extended quote Kiyoweap (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiyoweap I understand you have an invested interest but other users are voting delete. I'm just trying to keep things realistic. Just because the Polish newsletter got confused doesn't mean that we should write the wrong information. She is not on Sony Music. I hope we can find some good sources and I hope we can flesh out the article. But don't make it what it is not. Nesnad (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nesnad, you are not in the position of saying the media is confused. Especially since you are the one who is "mixed up", confused, and telling lies over and over again. --Kiyoweap (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have a personal problem with me? If so, I'm sorry about that. I've just been trying to stick to the facts. Maybe I am mistaken or HMV[39] is mistaken as listing the label as Aniplex. But I think you are getting stuck on the wrong thing. If those two minor albums are good enough to be notable then people will vote keep. If they aren't then they won't. We need to be finding sources of notability not fighting about details about already established facts. I am not sure why you take this so personal, I have no negative feelings toward you or Ms. Nakazono or anyone. I have also been trying to find sources that establish clear notability, no luck on my end yet. But if we can find enough to sway people, great! I'm OK with the page being kept of course. If we can't, then I'm OK with the page not being kept. Not all pianists in the world deserve a page, so don't take it personal! Nesnad (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just stop it. The label is Aniplex, which is wholly owned by Sony Music Entertainment group. Therefore it not a case of the Polish media being "confused" if they say she was approached by Sony Music to record the album, and not a mistake for a magazine to attribute the CD as "Aniplex/SMG" as you can see for yourself in the March 2009 issue of Piano from the scan on her website.[40] --Kiyoweap (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "delete" voters (Oaktree b, BrigadierG) could have realized in their searches that the 2CD requirement for notability had been met, so unless they reappraise on the CD issue, I think their votes will become invalidated.

Also as to their votes being [based on] media coverage, their own searches of Japanese or English sources (not Polish) may have been unsuccessful, but they probably didn't notice Nakazono's web page listing her own media coverage,[41] leading to the discovery of seemingly substantial coverage pieces such as these:

  • Piano magazine (March 2009 issue, scanned)[42]
  • Micchaku reports in Chopin monthly magazine　(Feb–April issues, in 3 parts, Yamaha group publishing, paywall)[43][44][45]
  • H!P (freemag from Kanagawa Shimbun company)[46]
  • Gazetta Babicka (local district paper covering 2013 Polish concert)[47]

Note that her Polish concert was not just printed but also televised,[48] so WP:MUSICBIO #4 seems fulfilled also. --Kiyoweap (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)minor fixesKiyoweap (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I overlooked that on CD issue, Oaktree b had said "Being signed to Sony Music would pass NMUSIC, but the sourcing just isn't there" but I have refuted Oaktree to have been mistaken here, as per the Polish gazette's "Sony Music propozycję nagrania płyty" and Japanese "Aniplex/SMG" quoted above, with "SMG (Sony Music Group)" being the old pre-merger name for that division. --Kiyoweap (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC) --link fix, etc. Kiyoweap (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was worried about the lack of sourcing, not the fact that she wasn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I'm an inclusionist but the fact that some users try to cram her into English Wikipedia with just a few not notable sources makes me feel a bit like this article is astroturfing or something. That's why I was looking for more than small local sources and trying to find something substantial to put in the article as a source but can't find anything yet. I understand Kiyoweap translated this into English and feels like we are deleting their hard work, but that's not my intent. I just honestly think we have to be fair and realistic about available sources to back up notability or not. Not all minor pianists are notable enough for English Wikipedia, if that turns out to be the case I don't mean anything negative to Kiyoweap or Ms. Nakazono of course. Nesnad (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, Oaktree b agrees on notability being established Being signed to Sony Music would pass NMUSIC now that I've now named two magazine sources.
BTW, while HMV salepoint site only just happens to only mention Aniplex but not Sony,[49] other sales sites like Bic Camera only mention "Sony Music Marketing ソニーミュージックマーケティング"[50][51] and Kinokuniya site names" Sony Music Solutions ソニー・ミュージックソリューションズ" as seller/distributor[52]. Please don't get bamboozled by the dishonest WP:CHERRYPICKing. --Kiyoweap (talk) 04:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)—Copyedited Kiyoweap (talk) 05:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nesnad, you are not neutral here. We know you were at Ms. Nakazono's concert in Tokyo, Japan on October 15, 2017(Polish festival in Japan). And you took her photo(now you have personality rights warning on Wikimedia) and you put her photo you took in the article on the next day. If you thought from the beginning that she didn't deserve to have an English page here, why did you put her photo in the article? Wouldn't it have been better to object from the beginning? You deliberately misrepresented her facts, and you definitely refused to acknowledge that Sony Music's official website listed her as an artist on their own page　https://www.sonymusic.co.jp/artistlist/, and you misrepresented her false information. Please don't bring your personal negative feelings towards her here. No matter what evidence we give you, you will never acknowledge it. Please just be neutral.
​ Sanobunji (talk) 06:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sanobunji I think you misunderstand how Wikimedia Commons works. You can upload photos there even if there is no article. It's about documenting Japan and our current era. Also, you misunderstand and think I am against Ms. Nakazono having a Wikipedia page. I'm not. But I also understand that you must be notable to have an English Wikipedia page. If she isn't notable, she can't force herself to have a page. If she is notable, she can. That's what people are deciding here. She is a good artist, so even if she is deemed not notable now, maybe she will be in the future. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You always dodge the main point. I said I am not here to play maind game with you.
Also, I have alreday introduced myself to you I am just an elderly man and my daughter is her close friend.
Ms. Nakazono currently lives in China which can not access Wikipedia, Google, Facebook, etc. Who said that she forces herself to have a page? Or did you talk to her directly? Or did she say that somewhere? - NO.
She defenitely does not force anything. (Why I know that because I and my daughter had a video chat with her) Her values are different from yours.
Everything what you said above is just a speculation based on your prejudice, and an abusive attack on Ms. Nakazono's character.
Pleae stop it. You are free to think she is not notable. However, you must stop to say something with your speculation based on your prejudice. Sanobunji (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for BrigadierG who added new comment at top: while I agree that "SPAs bludgeoning the discussion", in your words, may have "drudged up" a "sheer quantity of WP:ROUTINE" mentions not more than calendars, please be able to separate wheat from chaff.

I am neither SPA nor COI, and I did name four sources above, which contradict IMHO your claim there is no high quality in-depth coverage.
It is true it is a short list, but WP:MUSICBIO #1 is still met since the guideline language only stipulates "multiple, non-trivial" and not dozens, and do not exclude trade magazines or rural press.

And WP:MUSICBIO #5 on 2CDs is met also, which you have thus far side-stepped. --Kiyoweap (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BrigadierG though, besides you who feels connected to the article because you translated it, there are just SPAs throwing up links to small concerts and stuff. If all decades ago released minor release CDs got a page it would be chaos. Please don't misunderstand, if people agree she is notable, then I am OK with that-- honestly! But I haven't seen any in-depth coverage even though I have been looking, and that's a fact. She just seems like a minor pianoist, one of millions in Japan. Just stay true to the facts instead of attacking people. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 10:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I take it back, you're not an SPA, but this is one of the worst cases of WP:BLUDGEONING I've seen in a while. BrigadierG (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't have the will to verify the contents of the WP:RS foreign sources using machine translations, and think it's fine to say "I don't see in-depth coverage" based on your lack of effort, the both of you, then you are not fit to discuss foreign-language sourcing here, or anywhere.
I too would have preferred if visitors from Japan refrained from the barrage of mostly non-RS. But this was half-expected, had you heeded Oaktree b warning "I've translated some Japanese BLP for grid girls recently and the sourcing doesn't seem to be as good in the Japanese wiki as what we use".
It still does not serve as an excuse for you to ignore WP:RS that I filtered out, saying it got buried inside the piles heaped by the SPAs.
Again, the 2 CD criterion has passed, with only Nesnad still visibly insisting "minor release CDs", and his take on reality, that a product of a major Sony subsidiary is not really Sony, and therefore minor, can hardly be accepted as "realistic", though he keeps saying this ad nauseum. --Kiyoweap (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to engage any further on the topic. I've looked at the evidence presented and voted. BrigadierG (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. --Kiyoweap (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the deletion motion by the nominator Imaginatorium was not neutrally presented at the beginning, with the commentary that this "page has been plagued by POV fancruft since its inception". And although I sympathize that I have acted similarly in my past, in our case here, it may indeed have led to imparting to others the preconceived notion of excessive fan or COI interference.

And Imaginatorium had given himself the wrong impression of greater misconduct than real, back in 2014 PNT request (here, §Lisa Nakazono-Węgłowska) when he came to the wrong conclusion that the Japanese wiki page was nonexistent, leading to the frivolous accusation against the English version creator: "Where is this "initial language"? Actually this appears to be close to a direct (and not very good, of course) translation of the artist's website". --Kiyoweap (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Kiyoweap and @Oaktree b, @BrigadierG, @A. B.
We, the visitors from Japan, sincerely apologize to you all if we have offended you. In the beggining, We just came here to tell you all that this deletion request came from unreasonable anger based on incorrect facts from Mr. Imaginatorium. We just tried to correct her name given to Ms. Nakazono's photo here because it was incorrect(It said Lisa Nakazono-Węgłowska). The photo was taken in 2016, so her name was already Lisa Nakazono at that time. But Mr. Imaginatorium said she was a Lisa Nakazono-Węgłowska at that time, It is not a promotion page nor fan page and got angry with us and changed her name back to Lisa Nakazono-Węgłowska again. Shortly after that, he submitted this deletion request. So the reason why we Japanese visitors came here was simply to try to explain we just wanted to correct her name and show the proof. However, after that, Mr. Nesnad attacked us relentlessly, and he repeatedly defaming Ms. Nakazono. We Japanese visitors sincerely apologize for getting heated. We have no intention of disturbing you all. Also, we all do not force you all to think Ms. Nakazono is notable. We just wanted to convey the fact we know. Also, Ms. Nakazono never ever foece anyone to think she is notable enough to be here, She is not such a person. We know that. Now, we are leaving. We truly respect and appreciate your lot of hard work. Especially dear @Kiyoweap, thank you so much for your lot of hard work to find sources, translate mamy articles. Ms. Nakazono wants to show her sincere and deep appliciation to you too. (I talked to her on the phone.)
Thank you so much.
And dear @Imaginatorium, We appreciate your hard work too.
Sincerely,
Japanese visitors 2001:268:C2C2:801:255B:2DCB:2C6:CE6F (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't ping me further at this point, I've rendered my decision as above. Oaktree b (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiyoweap: I really do not understand what you are trying to say here. I wrote everything you quote in good faith, and I believe all of it to be substantially true. The page has been a "fan page" from the beginning, as the fanbase themselves candidly admit (They are here so everyone in the world who cannot read Japanese, which by definition means they read English, can know about Lisa Nakazono), and numerous other editors have commented on this. The 2014 discussion about "translation": I was not aware that "Translation" refers only to precisely cases where there is a WP page in some other language which has or appears to be translated into this one. That is why I asked where the "initial version" was, and I commented that the page appeared to be more or less a translation of the subject's webpage. This is not a "frivolous accusation", in fact none of what I wrote is an accusation of anything. Perhaps you might like to reword or clarify. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:31, 13 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. Nomination withdrawn. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Nakazono (non-admin closure)‎ BrigadierG (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Lisa Nakazono[edit]

Talk:Lisa Nakazono (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Lisa Nakazono|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)

General notability is unclear, and the page has been plagued by POV fancruft since its inception. Unless a properly sourced biography can be put together (for example, she was married, and went by the name Nakazono Węgłowska for some period), I think the page would be better deleted. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:59, 6 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! 07:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Club Cerralvo[edit]

Club Cerralvo (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 per WP:NBUILDING and WP:GNG. All of the references are about the location, with no mention of the condominium complex, and a search for reliable secondary sources on it turned up only trivial travel listings. Proposed deletion was contested without comment by the article's creator. Wikishovel (talk) 07:53, 6 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. ✗plicit 06:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Whicker[edit]

Fred Whicker (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)

Stub article about an artist that strongly fails WP:GNG. Looking for sources turned up nothing relevant except for a list of artists in Britain |at this link. Article was also previously full of copyrighted content, which when removed left practically nothing. Sgubaldo (talk) 06:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not finding much on a BEFORE BrigadierG (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was able to improve the sourcing and to add citations for the three public collections. Whether all three are notable collections, I'm not sure... I also added a little content + sources. I'm holding off on !voting at this time, as I'd first like to see if anything else of interest can be found. Netherzone (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This one is not even close to meeting the notability guidelines. Easy call to delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST criteria for inclusion. Netherzone (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I couldn't find any RS. Given his age (early-mid twentieth century), some offline sources might possibly exist, at which point the page could be re-submitted, but presently fails relevant criteria. Cabrils (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and does not meet WP:NARTIST. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:28, 13 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 List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. after no response to source analysis by editors advocating Keeping this article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wendell Holland[edit]

Wendell Holland (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)

Notable for just winning Survivor: Ghost Island after a tie with a runner-up. However, neither even being eliminated in Survivor: Winners at War nor being the first person eliminated in another reality series Beach Cabana Royale would make this person notable or qualified per WP:ENT. Neither would co-hosting a short-lived series Hot Mess House or being nominated for (but didn't win) People's Choice Award.

Furthermore, I don't think WP:SUSTAINED would potentially fix the article's issues with WP:PAGEDECIDE (or WP:BLP1E if applicable). Moreover, I'm unsure whether to add details about the subject's relationships seen in Survivor and the "manipulative" editing (primary source, regardless of publication) per WP:BLP policy. Should be redirected definitely to Survivor: Ghost Island (alternatively, if deemed more suitable, list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants). George Ho (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. Suitskvarts (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why not alternatively redirect to the season where this person won the game? George Ho (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd be more comfortable getting from a name redirect to a list rather than a more complicated page, but I'm not opposed to the other option either Suitskvarts (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement about proposed Redirect targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Liz: I actually don't oppose redirecting the article to the list. I was simply asking about the alternative. Why would you think so? --George Ho (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources indicate that she notable – someone does not need to be the winner of the show to be notable. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (He.) Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, typo. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what sources you were referring to, but I don't think the sources covered him adequately in the context of him as an individual. The only time his gameplay in Winners at War was covered was original broadcast. Also, the only times his hosting was covered were also original broadcast of the shows he was in. That's as far as I have deducted. --George Ho (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets GNG and per DaniloDaysOfOurLives. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • REDIRECT to Survivor: Ghost Island. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific enumeration and discussion of sources which are claimed to establish notability would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unsure whether to use Daily Beast, which whose reliability remains undecided by consensus. The article primarily quotes Holland but only about different matter not primarily related to him.
  • The House Digest article briefly mentions him as a host of an HGTV series, but the article is more about improving a house interior design or organizing house stuff, not about him primarily.
  • This Entertainment Weekly article is just an interview with the primary source himself, Holland. So is another EW article.
  • Unsure whether to use Distractify article to verify his notability. It cites EW interviews, social media, and even HGTV shows that he's in. Furthermore, the author was "hop[ing]" that Holland reveal more about his personal life to his fans.
  • Same about this article, which is more about the event he's co-hosting than Holland himself.
  • Men's Health article seems to indicate his notability, but it appears either on borderline or stepping over boundaries of WP:BLP. Or, rather it looks gossipy about his personal life.

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: Any reliable sources I'm unaware of? George Ho (talk) 19:08, 6 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. ✗plicit 06:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eliane Valdez[edit]

Eliane Valdez (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 subject has earned at least four caps for the Cuba women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 06:20, 6 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. ✗plicit 06:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wincrest homes[edit]

Wincrest homes (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)

A7 declined on the basis of a non-notable industry award. Zero indication this is a notable company. No NCORP-compliant sourcing located on a search. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's well past my bedtime but WL has 1,051 hits for Wincrest homes, at least some of the top few looked cogent. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Considered the version before the article was stripped, still not satisfied it meets WP:CORP. Don't agree with Espresso Addict that an Award on its own can't confer notability, however I don't think the 2003 Royal Australian Institute of Architects (RAIA) Premiers Award and the National UDIA award for marketing and the Premiers award in the 2003 Australian Institute of Architects NSW annual awards, meet that bar (note, they are not sourced, so I am assuming that list is accurate). Spinifex&Sand (talk) 06:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources fail to meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. There are no in-depth articles about the company that meet the criteria. I also agree that the awards mentioned are insufficient. HighKing++ 16:38, 11 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. ✗plicit 05:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Tapper[edit]

Ben Tapper (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 falls so far short of WP:GNG as to make its existence a borderline WP:BLP violation. The only facts that we can cite about this man are:

  • He exists.
  • One time, three years ago, he was one of "several people in the community" who stood up to say a single sentence at a single city council meeting.

Note that most of the stuff our article says cannot be cited reliably.

  • He is a chiropractor from Nebraska: this is cited to his own website.
  • He was "responsible for 65% of COVID-19 anti-vaccine misinformation and conspiracy theories on the internet and social media": the the Guardian article we're citing does not say his name a single time. "Ben Tapper" appears only in a link from that article, which is a non-peer-reviewed PDF from a political advocacy organization. He is one of twelve people listed in the PDF, and of them he is number eleven.

This is really stretching the limits of what can be considered notable; a news website two years ago mentioned a PDF from a think tank that itself mentions him alongside eleven other people? jp×g 02:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. jp×g 02:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (leaning weak delete) there's more than just the Guardian discussing the disinformation study; it seems at least the AP [53] (already in article through a republishing) and National Post [54] had their own independent write ups that mention his name, along with The Independent article already in the article. It does not quite fall under WP:BLP1E due to #3 since I think the general anti-vaccine movement during COVID-19 is a significant event although perhaps so since his role is fairly minor. Skynxnex (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (leaning week keep per WP:BASIC). FYI – Ben Tapper himself claims on LinkedIn that he was catapulted to nationwide fame based on the video of his testimony at that Omaha City Council hearing which went viral – supposedly with 3 million views in the first 24 hours – but that isn't stated in any reliable independent secondary source and it's now impossible to verify as the original version of the video appears to have been taken down (because the YouTube account which posted it has been closed). Added an academic journal article in the Online Journal of Issues in Nursing which discusses The Disinformation Dozen report, specifically focusing on the six healthcare professionals who were part of the twelve (including Tapper). Also tried to balance out the article with multiple perspectives citing the Independent, Associated Press, etc., to make it compliant with WP:FRINGEBLP. (Possibly too balanced?) Seems like the bio is still very topical given the 2023 lawsuit against the Washington Post, Associated Press, Reuters, and the BBC, with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (also now mentioned in the article). Cielquiparle (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Coverage in the Guardian is fine [55], then it's down the rabbit hole. The Anabaptist World [56] and he's mentioned as appearing on OAN [57]. Second seems iffy, third mentions OAN which is no-no site for reliability. I'm not seeing enough RS for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, the question is: Is there enough RS discussing the person while also putting his pseudoscientific claims into context. For now, have added the Media Matters for America link discrediting his claim on OAN that childhood vaccines contain "aborted fetal cells" etc. Cielquiparle (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This was a very confusing AFD as an editor came in and changed the deletion rationale to a positive argument for Keeping this article. I have reverted the discussion to before their edits, I apologize if anything has been removed. Besides that disruption though, we need more strong opinions on what should be done with this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was attaching articles in relation to the person. It was not disruptive.
Dr. Tapper is the executive producer of the film, "The Time is Now." The article written above is attempting to discredit Dr. Tapper and the work that he does. 97.107.199.114 (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
97.107.199.114, you can participate in this discussion but don't alter other editor's comments. Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is nothing that is significant enough to qualify for a Wikipedia biography at this time imo. If you look at the category American chiropractors you can see those with biographies have more significant and lasting achievements. WP:TOOSOON applies here. 5Q5|✉ 10:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he isn't a notable chiropractor. But is he a notable conspiracy theorist? Cielquiparle (talk) 12:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so, strictly speaking for the sources, we only have one really good one (Guardian) and a bunch of iffy ones. Oaktree b (talk) 14:25, 6 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. There is not a lot of participation here but I see a consensus to Keep the article and a good faith effort to find sources. Liz Read! Talk! 05:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Globe[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mrs. Globe (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 recently closed the third nomination as delete as the keep side did not respond to evidence this failed the GNG. Since then, some further sources have been provided that require discussion.

The sources provided are: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5

& 

[58] [59] [60] etc.

The second requires a Wikipedia Library Account Spartaz Humbug! 05:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is degenerating into a fiasco. The previous nomination's closure as "delete" was bizarre given that no one except the original nominator agreed (there were various keeps and comments and a burst of activity at ANI). That nomination was itself odd because it was only a month after the second, procedurally-closed by Liz who gave some valuable advice on how to carry out an AfD. It's a pity the advice hasn't been heeded. Here we are again with a nomination that doesn't actually say why the article should be deleted (or not?). Please could we have a coherent statement of what is wrong with the article, the grounds for deletion? Elemimele (talk) 07:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And this is precisely what was wrong with the last discussion. If you ignore the question of whether the sources are good enough you ceed the argument to the delete voters. Someone needs to do a proper source analysis then voters agree whether it's correct or not. That's how you resolve this forever but it's more fun to be a keyboard warrior and throw stones than do the basics properly. Spartaz Humbug! 14:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those voting keep not directly addressing GNG does not mean that those who want it deleted automatically win, especially when the only person who wanted it deleted is a single-purpose account whose only wave coming close to GNG was I do not see a notable pageant (not directly addressing GNG, either) – that previously closure of yours was completely illogical – I honestly don't understand how you could have possibly thought that "delete" was the consensus. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree. And closing as delete, not deleting, but instead renominating for deletion only three days later, is a completely strange approach to handling an AfD. Spartaz, if you personally weren't happy that sources had been adequately discussed in the last AfD, so far as I'm aware the correct thing to do would be to join in the discussion by carrying out a source analysis or commenting on sources (and then leave someone else to close it). Or alternatively you could have adopted the clerking/admin role and relisted it with a comment that a source analysis would be helpful. Elemimele (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - All 5 of these are full on lengthy articles about the competition - 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. This one here is another good article on the competition and one of its competitors. This is also another decently sized article on the pageant here. This talks about some of the people in the 2012 pagaeant, and talks about its history and varoious details of it. It also mentions that there was more information on the Desert Sun's newspaper about it, though that link appears to be long gone. There's a nice long article on it and the Canadian qualifiers here. There also a nice long article on one of the winners here and the competition itself here. I think this is more than enough, and if you look through the other language wikipedia articles on this, there's more sources as well. KatoKungLee (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Events, Beauty pageants, Belarus, and Russia. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't care a bit about pageants, but this one is clearly notable and I felt I had to participate because of a truly nonsensical closure in the last discussion. There's plenty of coverage of this - Spartaz said on their talk page that its "all local," but, really, is it? E.g. The Leader-Post (a major Canadian newspaper), The Desert Sun (California, U.S. - 2), The Sault Star (another Canadian paper), Asbury Park Press (New Jersey, U.S.), The News & Advance (Virginia, U.S.), plenty more on Newspapers.com - and that's just from the US and Canada, I'm sure there's plenty more from other countries (the APP one mentions that "it is a much bigger deal around the world than it is in the U.S."). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:21, 6 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS-39 Nawabshah-III[edit]

PS-39 Nawabshah-III (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 am concerned that this page does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements and thus have nominated it for deletion. A y d o h 8 ( t a l k ) 04:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While many of these articles are in a relatively poor state, with many still needing information on their election results, they are inherently notable. They are second level constituencies, like the ones of the state assemblies in the US or Australia. Those have been found to be notable, so why should this constituency be any different? We should instead wait for those articles to be expanded upon, instead of tossing them in the trash. Millows! | 🪧 13:23, 30 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! 05:20, 6 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! 03:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Harrison (bobsleigh)[edit]

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

Prod declined. Simply competing the Olympics does not meet WP:NOLY. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT for lack of coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:55, 30 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! 05:17, 6 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! 05:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Maranda[edit]

Nicolas Maranda (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)

Created by a single purpose editor. Poorly sourced (also same in French and Finnish article versions). I don't see anything that pushes him over the mark for WP:MUSICBIO. The first gnews hit maybe but other than that indepth coverage is extremely limited. LibStar (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. LibStar (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment He was active on the series 19-2, but seems to have lost trust after a video was posted of his, ahem, amorous activities with his spouse [64]. I'd have to dig more, he seems to be semi-regularly discussed in Quebec media. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He's given a brief interview here [65] and talks about being an immigrant in Quebec. Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He probably passes NMUSIC for: 2011 Nicolas Maranda, 19–2 Composer, arranger, musician (Double Gémeau Award-winning soundtrack) Gemeau is the French version of the Gemini award, the Canadian Grammy. Oaktree b (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT. While he has potentially valid notability claims with Gémeaux awards (and a Canadian Screen Award nomination that the article as written completely misses), in this form it's a mess with far, far too much completely unsourced trivia and far, far too much advertorialism shot through it. No prejudice against recreation if somebody can write something better than this and support it with far more than just one footnote, but as written this ain't cutting it at all. Bearcat (talk) 04:21, 10 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! 05:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jujhautiya Brahmin[edit]

Jujhautiya Brahmin (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. Also, created with WP:OR Admantine123 (talk) 04:55, 6 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! 05:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fallen Never Forgotten[edit]

Fallen Never Forgotten (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 cannot find any significant independent coverage of this book. There is a single article in the Poughkeepsie Journal - but it was written by the author of the book. I suspect the book is self published, as I cannot find any indication that RU Airborne is a real publisher. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:54, 6 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 Mayotte national football team#Notable players. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adifane Noussoura[edit]

Adifane Noussoura (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:notability under either GNG or Nsports. No content except database type info. Has only 1 reference and the reference doesn't even mention him. Reviewed during NPP. North8000 (talk) 03:06, 6 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! 02:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rivergate Parkway[edit]

Rivergate Parkway (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 an unremarkable local road. I checked for sources, and all I could find were results about Rivergate Mall and construction updates for Interstate 65; there wasn't anything about this road specifically. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 03:05, 6 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! 02:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Albania–Georgia relations[edit]

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

Marked for notability concerns 6 years. There really is not much to these relations besides diplomatic recognition. The primary source provided https://web.archive.org/web/20110906093451/http://www.mfa.gov.ge/index.php?sec_id=266&lang_id=ENG indicates level of trade is very low (although figures probably outdated). LibStar (talk) 03:00, 6 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 2000 AD (comics). as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 02:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Doomsday Scenario[edit]

The Doomsday Scenario (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)

Judge Dredd's storyline, a lenghty plot summary with no reception, footnotes are all again just to the comic book issues. I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale " I think this needs to go to AfD" which IMHO is not a helpful rationale, but - let's discuss. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not enough WP:SIGCOV to support a separate article, and no reliable sources at all, at this point. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale "I think this needs to go to AfD" which IMHO is not a helpful rationale... As you very well know, a prodded article can be deprodded by anyone for any reason or none. As you also very well know (or should do), prodding should not be used as an attempt to get around AfD and should never be used if opposition could be reasonably foreseen. I do not consider that this is an article that should simply be deleted without discussion. Prodding is becoming worryingly common on articles for which deletion could clearly be controversial. To reiterate, prodding is for uncontroversial deletion only. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This feels like a keep to me based on the subject itself, but I observe there's no critical reception section and therefore no immediate source of sourcing. Let's see what can be done about that... Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question if we draftify these articles, how easy would they be to find for any potential future resurrection? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 09:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @BoomboxTestarossa Outside folks noticing them from editing mode information about deletion (deletion log), we can leave a note about this on Talk:Judge Dredd or such (which almost nobody reads, sadly). SOFTDELETION through redirecitng would make things easier for folks to access in the rare cases they care and figure out how to do so. So redirecting to Judge Dredd and mentioning this in the big bad list of plot summaries there might work, for now... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a shame considering Judge Dredd's undoubted notability but sadly editors with the time and knowledge in the area to work on the overhaul needed seem to be thin on the ground (it's a sad surprise that these nominations haven't drawn more of a response) and I have a big slate; while I never say never to getting involved in a project this one seems like it would be a long way down the line if at all for me. So I would say redirect on sentimental terms, but would have no real grounds for an objection to delete. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 09:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Batman is notable, and the Batman storyline Batman: No Man's Land is notable, but we do have to have sources establishing that No Man's Land is notable. It feels like Doomsday should be notable, but we need sources confirming that it's notable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. But there is an unbolded Keep and a hint of a Redirect in these comments so we are a ways from a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:41, 6 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 2000 AD (comics). as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 02:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Judgement Day (Judge Dredd)[edit]

Judgement Day (Judge Dredd) (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)

Judge Dredd's storyline, a lenghty plot summary with no reception, footnotes are 100% to the comic book issues. I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale " I think this needs to go to AfD" which IMHO is not a helpful rationale, but - let's discuss. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reliable sources. WP:BEFORE didn't discover enough WP:SIGCOV, though it's possible there's a redirect or even a merge, if someone can establish at least some reliable coverage. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale "I think this needs to go to AfD" which IMHO is not a helpful rationale... As you very well know, a prodded article can be deprodded by anyone for any reason or none. As you also very well know (or should do), prodding should not be used as an attempt to get around AfD and should never be used if opposition could be reasonably foreseen. I do not consider that this is an article that should simply be deleted without discussion. Prodding is becoming worryingly common on articles for which deletion could clearly be controversial. To reiterate, prodding is for uncontroversial deletion only. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 6 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 2000 AD (comics). as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 02:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Day of Chaos[edit]

Day of Chaos (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)

Judge Dredd's storyline, a lenghty plot summary with no reception, effectively unreferenced (two footnotes - to a Facebook post and a blog). I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale " I think this needs to go to AfD" which IMHO is not a helpful rationale, but - let's discuss. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BEFORE didn't bring anything up for this one either. Only unreliable sources at present. I could also be talked into a redirect or merge if someone finds even some minor reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale "I think this needs to go to AfD" which IMHO is not a helpful rationale... As you very well know, a prodded article can be deprodded by anyone for any reason or none. As you also very well know (or should do), prodding should not be used as an attempt to get around AfD and should never be used if opposition could be reasonably foreseen. I do not consider that this is an article that should simply be deleted without discussion. Prodding is becoming worryingly common on articles for which deletion could clearly be controversial. To reiterate, prodding is for uncontroversial deletion only. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:25, 6 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 2000 AD (comics). as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 01:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

City of the Damned[edit]

City of the Damned (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)

Judge Dredd's storyline, a lenghty plot summary with no reception, effectively unreferenced. I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale " I think this needs to go to AfD" which IMHO is not a helpful rationale, but - let's discuss. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'd be theoretically in favour of a heavy edit and merge to some sort of List of Judge Dredd stories/story arcs article but a) that doesn't exist and b) it would be absurdly long. However, while I am working a lot on the IPC weeklies I won't be touching 2000 AD because the fans are mental and life is too short. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That said, poking around the Judge Dredd template reveals a huge number of unreferenced under-referenced articles (e.g. Wetworks (Judge Dredd novel) and most of the other novels, Judge Dredd: Grud is Dead and most of the radio plays, Banzai Battalion, etc). Judge Dredd is clearly notable but a lot of these derivative pages seem to stem from the days when sections of Wikipedia were basically a Fandom forerunner.
    If it was coverage of an area I was fully confident/interested in I'd wipe a lot of it and build back up from a set of well-reference list-type articles, splitting off to individual pages when the threshold for notability is met, which is an approach that seems to be working okay on other British comics.
    But I don't have much beyond working knowledge of Dredd and my editing is heavily invested elsewhere, and I'm reluctant to mass-prod articles at the same time, making it difficult for someone who does have those attributes to respond. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment corrected for spelling, "unreferenced" to "under-referenced". BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BoomboxTestarossa Some past AfDs from similar JD's topics have led to Judge_Dredd#Major_storylines, but it looks... bad. :( There is indeed a lot of cleanup to do here, although Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega-City One is worth checking (and perhaps revisiting, as the article certainly did not improve since...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus yikes, yeah. Also not crazy-crazy on the idea of "major storylines", which feels like a subjective call anyway (what's major? Critical acclaim? Lots of discussion? Length? Impact for the fictional universe? collected in TPB?); my instinct would be in so much as possible all-or-nothing but again I wouldn't be doing it. And with c.2300 issues of 2000 AD and c.440 issued of Megazine, plus spin-offs, plus the way British comics often pack a lot into 3-4 pages, any list would be gigantic.
I am ever so slightly biased towards weak redirect to Judge Dredd, entirely because I hate, hate, hate typing plot summaries (I can never do them justice) so am always up for some sort of preserved option should a use ever be found. Again, though, I am wary of dictating *how* the material should be handled as I have no intention of working on the area in the foreseeable future. It's a shame there isn't some feature where articles like this can somehow be archived in an easy-to-access library where they're not good enough for Wikipedia but not totally without future potential. To some degree with older comics there's an x-factor where TPB releases can suddenly generate sources. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale "I think this needs to go to AfD" which IMHO is not a helpful rationale... As you very well know, a prodded article can be deprodded by anyone for any reason or none. As you also very well know (or should do), prodding should not be used as an attempt to get around AfD and should never be used if opposition could be reasonably foreseen. I do not consider that this is an article that should simply be deleted without discussion. Prodding is becoming worryingly common on articles for which deletion could clearly be controversial. To reiterate, prodding is for uncontroversial deletion only. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Deprodding with WP:IDONTLIKEIT-like rationale is IMHO a WP:POINT abuse of the system. Yes, you are technically correct you can do so, but wasting folks time at AFD is not a constructive way to help the project IMHO. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no WP:POINT here whatsoever. I deprodded because I did not believe deletion of this article was uncontroversial, which is the only reason I ever deprod articles. This project is governed by discussion and if someone does not believe that deletion is uncontroversial then you should just take it to AfD without making snide remarks. And please do not accuse an editor of abuse of the system for asking for a discussion, which only serves to imply that you think your decisions shouldn't be challenged. You really should know better. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep confusing "controversial" with "I don't like it". Case in point, no keep votes for those articles, even from you. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be completely fair, so far only one person has made any point on these AfDs beyond a comment. There were six of these articles nominated all at once from the same series. Not only is it going to take time for people to get around to reviewing these articles, but there simply aren't enough people commenting to get a clear consensus either way. Pokelego999 (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm mystified as to how anything I've said is "I don't like it". I've said it clearly could be controversial. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, one editor doesn't make a controversy. But we're in the AFD process now, and we can let the discussion run its course. I suggest all the editors take the procedural discussion elsewhere, including whether Wikipedia is supposed to operate as a WP:BUREAUCRACY. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If a deletion could reasonably seen to be controversial then prodding should not be used. WP:PROD is perfectly clear on this. It should be blatantly obvious to anyone that deletion of an article related to such a significant topic as Judge Dredd could be seen as controversial. It should not really have been prodded in the first place, and deprodding should not have been greeted with a snide remark. That was my only point. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't call a Judge Dredd storyline controversial, I mean it's a comic, not genocide or nuclear war. Oaktree b (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sign of coverage from reliable sources. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Divided between Delete and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:16, 6 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! 01:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Yeh[edit]

Rebecca Yeh (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 doesn't pass WP:GNG as a beauty pageant winner. Let'srun (talk) 02:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since all the articles that have mentioned Rebecca Yeh date back to 2013 and she hasn't had much coverage since then. It doesn't look like she has done any pageants since then either. Multiple articles have stated that she was going to school for a doctorate in pharmacy so maybe she changed her name or got married and prefers a private life.
Hiphopsavedmylife (talk) 08:01, 7 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! 01:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jordyn Colao[edit]

Jordyn Colao (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 doesn't meet WP:GNG or any notability guideline as a beauty pageant winner. Let'srun (talk) 02:02, 6 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! 04:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Miss Globe 2022[edit]

The Miss Globe 2022 (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 instance of a beauty pageant. All the sources provided are simply announcing who the winner is. ... discospinster talk 02:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete apply the G5 criteria and a good-faith editor can start over, if it meets GNG criteria. Call it TNT. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:48, 10 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. ✗plicit 00:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comstock, North Dakota[edit]

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

A passing siding on the edge of a swamp on a long-abandoned line. North Dakota: Counties, Towns & People, Part 2 says of Comstock that "despite its stockyards and elevator, never experienced any form of lasting settlement." So not a notable settlement. Mangoe (talk) 01:24, 6 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! 01:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ethopia[edit]

Ethopia (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)

Contains only two entries: Ethopia (moth) and a misspelling of Ethiopia. That does not seem useful for a disambiguation page, but a user claimed that the misspelling of Ethiopia is common enough to justify a dab page. WP:DAB is ambiguous on misspellings. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Disambiguations, and Ethiopia. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move Ethopia (moth) to this title with a hatnote - given the shortness of that stub the result for people looking for the country is almost as good. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pppery. Including a misspelling on a disambiguation page doesn't seem appropriate to me. A hatnote would be better. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and institute Pppery's suggestion. —siroχo 04:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move Ethopia (moth) to Ethopia, per Pppery. (I'm the one who initially changed the redirect to Ethiopia to the dab. Yes, really I should have suggested moving Ethopia (moth) but I can't recall my thinking at the time.) --A bit iffy (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • So before we get all bandwagony here ;) let's revisit the comment: https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Ethopia does indicate the typo is quite common, so this is actually useful apparently. In July, there were 182 views of the page, and given anonymization rules for <10 clickstreams, we only see 116 clicks to Ethiopia (i.e. typo) which is 63%, and nothing rendered going to the moth. That means in the absolute best case very unlikely scenario for the moth, 9 readers went to the moth from search, 9 from main page, 9 from an unidentified source, and 9 from other Wikimedia projects. It's still just 36 which is a bit under 20%. Even if this was just one month of data, and we don't know if it's super reliable, sending at least 80% of readers to somewhere where we don't have any proof they want to go to - seems a bit sketchy. We also have a recent precedent here in the recent move of Courtney Cox to primary redirect (!). --Joy (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the context. I feel that's at least a slightly different case, because "Courtney" is the more common spelling of the name pronounced in that way, so even though it's technically a misspelling, it's more of an alternate spelling, because the reader is intentionally spelling it that way. (we can even see the internet slowly learn the correct spelling for the performer's name over time [66])
    In this case, WP:SURPRISE is happening either way, so the dab should probably go, and I think that's what Pppery was probably getting at with the given the shortness of that stub... comment.
    And to cover all the bases, if the consensus is that to avoid WP:SURPRISE, despite an actual misspelling that is not an alternate spelling, Ethopia should be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Ethiopia, we can still hatnote Ethopia (moth) itself on the article. A dab would have a single meaningful entry in that case and not be useful. —siroχo 08:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how to satisfy the principle of least astonishment here. It seems reasonable to assume that a person who knows they're looking for the moth will probably be astonished that we promote a typo over the correct use of the word; conversely, a person looking for information on Ethiopia will probably be confused that in the very top of the article we promote a word that has little to do with the country. The latter group is significantly larger than the first, though, so if this traffic remains at a separate disambiguation page, at least the impact is less. --Joy (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My reason for agreement with the initial suggestion was because the dab is overall less useful than a hatnoted article. Perhaps WP:ONEOTHER is the most appropriate guideline, despite the spelling. Do you see a clear benefit for keeping the dab over simply hatnoting Ethopia (moth), and leaving Ethiopia alone? (Leaving aside, for now, the potential for a different consensus around Ethiopia being considered the primary redirect for Ethopia) —siroχo 21:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mentioned it above - the only data point we have tells us that over 80% of people would then likely be clicking the hatnote. IOW we would not actually be helping the navigation of the average reader. --Joy (talk) 14:22, 9 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 List of The Pink Panther characters. Liz Read! Talk! 01:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Man (The Pink Panther)[edit]

The Little Man (The Pink Panther) (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 only consists of one section of pure in-universe information. There is only one single reference, in the lead, that confirms that he is considered the main antagonist in The Pink Panther franchise. Grapesoda22 (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

—siroχo 05:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Books on this page all seem to mention The Little Man at least in passing, I haven't had the time to go thru them. 1 Does that help with WP:GNG? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    With Google Books and internet archive I couldn't find a "solid" GNG. Other sources did all seem to be in passing. The two sources I listed aren't bad at all, I'd personally feel comfortable verifying the article we have and letting it sit for future editors to expand as more sources are found. But, I'm not confident we wouldn't end up back here in a few months, which is why I am leaning toward the relatively complete merge. —siroχo 05:53, 6 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. ✗plicit 00:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vratnica attack[edit]

Vratnica attack (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 sustained coverage; it fails WP:NEVENTS and WP:NOTNEWS. It was also curiously created with the much earlier dated multiple issues tags. --Local hero talk 00:42, 6 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 List of Sirius XM Radio channels#Former channels. Liz Read! Talk! 00:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Parallèle[edit]

Radio Parallèle (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. A search for sources returns no independent reliable sources. It seems we have several articles on non-notable satellite radio channels. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:48, 6 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 List of Sirius XM Radio channels#Former channels. Liz Read! Talk! 00:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Specials (Sirius XM)[edit]

Specials (Sirius XM) (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. Not seeing significant coverage in independent reliable sources for this subject. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:42, 6 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_6&oldid=1175424712"