Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 23 March 25 >

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 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! 00:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marisa Tayui[edit]

Marisa Tayui (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 on an actress, created by an WP:SPA, that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG. Looking at her credits, she has largely had extremely minor roles, appearing mainly as unnamed bit-parts (i.e. "Student", "Reporter", etc). The only appearance of any note at all that I can find is as a reoccurring role in The Gorburger Show, but that by itself would not be enough to pass WP:NACTOR. Searches did not turn up any significant coverage in reliable sources on this individual. Rorshacma (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete little to no third party coverage, credits do not appear to be notable.-KH-1 (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Suburban Legends. Liz Read! Talk! 04:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Batstone[edit]

Chris Batstone (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)

He doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSICBIO / WP:GNG independent of the band. Possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect to Suburban Legends, but could overpower that article, and no referenced info to merge. Boleyn (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have two different proposed Redirect target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It would be wonderful if notability-establishing sources could be added to the article. It would lessen the possibility that this article will be returned to AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 03:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hava (musician)[edit]

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

Google search results are drowned out by results about Hava Nagila. Does not appear to have significant coverage from secondary sources.

May be notable from chart placements as lead or featured artists. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 17:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

English results are drowned out by Hava Nagila (per above), but I've tracked down some more recent sources in German:
I can't speak to their reliability or value to the article, though if anyone speaks German, these may be of use. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 17:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: The sources provided are not enough for the article but the charting is a start. Fails WP:GNG and passes WP:NMUSICIAN.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheChineseGroundnut (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Our notability guidelines WP:MUSICBIO state we may presume notability with a record in national charts. Hava has 13 entries in the German official chart, including a number 1, which is cited in the article and meets WP:GOODCHARTS: GfK. Another example of further secondary coverage: HAVA - "JA SAGEN". I don't have the language skills for in-depth investigation - however with this sort of charting record I think we can safely presume further secondary sources exist. Note: I've added two more charting singles, including a top 10, to the article. ResonantDistortion 22:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per ResonantDistortion, appears to pass WP:NMUSICIAN Tehonk (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep chart-holders are of public interest and there is some coverage. - Altenmann >talk 21:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep passes criteria 2 of WP:NMUSIC with nationally charting releases as confirmed in reliable sources such as this, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. then Redirect to List of radio stations in West Virginia Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WVPP-LP[edit]

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

PROD removed by creator on the basis that "It met the criteria at the time of it's creation". However, radio stations must meet the general notability guideline, requiring "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Lacking any secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and West Virginia. AusLondonder (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose OP has nominated multiple articles for deletion per ORGCRIT. As many of you know, the criterion for article creation changed a couple years back. That said, in 2007, when this article was created, it met the criterion. We shouldn't be retro-actively placing all articles to new criterion. I would recommend the OP actually look for secondary sources, instead of nominating everything for deletion (which seems to be their MO). This will be my only post on this matter. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your frustration. I'm not a newbie and I am aware that notability requirements have, appropriately and by community consensus, been made more stringent. However the idea that different rules would apply to different articles depending on time of creation doesn't make any sense. Having unsourced articles does no service to an encyclopedia or our readers. AusLondonder (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is no secondary coverage of the station, so it does not appear to meet GNG. Guidelines at time of creation are irrelevant, we go off our current rules. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 18:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is, if anything, a remnant of those looser 2007 notability "guidelines" — but, often for good reason, there's no grandfather clause when notability guidelines are tightened (the biggest move in that direction, at least in this topic area, was this 2021 RfC that found there was no consensus for any looser notability guideline for broadcast stations than the GNG). Articles that seemed to meet notability guidelines 17 years ago but fall short (if not well short) today are brought to AfD all the time; indeed, most probably only last that long because they are largely flying under the radar (a new article that looked like this would, if not nominated for deletion, at least be moved out of mainspace pretty quickly today). In general, newer broadcast stations (and this one only broadcast for 14 years before folding) are less likely to attain the significant coverage required to meet GNG. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of radio stations in West Virginia. (Disclaimer: I have a long history of friendly interaction with the article's creator.) What little content currently here is useful, and I don't think something should be deleted outright if redirection is a viable alternative. If I can find the time, then I would like to find sources to add more material on this station. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 12:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Subject does not have the requisite sources to meet the WP:GNG. FCC databases just don't cut it. Let'srun (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing as keep per consensus developed due to newly found sources, that can be incorporated into the article. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese lunar coins[edit]

Chinese lunar coins (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 doesn't appear to meet WP:N. I can't see a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "面值"一元"卖百元？当心，这类龙年纪念钞买不得-新华网". www.news.cn. Retrieved 2024-03-04.
  • 郁祥桢 (1995). 钱币丛谈 (in Chinese). 上海古籍出版社. ISBN 978-7-5325-1852-4.
  • "【纪念币面面观】纪念币上的中国龙_中国银行保险报网". www.cbimc.cn. Retrieved 2024-03-04.
Only problem is that the entire article is unsourced... (which is why this is not a "keep") Jumpytoo Talk 05:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article just needs to be cleaned up (adding sources). Abstrakt (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Are the sources added to the article sufficient?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Interesting topic, but trying to rescue this by adding one footnote to a cite of dubious reliablity where we have two paragraphs of text that look like advertising ([1]) is hardly useful. This seems like an interesting and plausibly notable topic, but the current exceution is terrible, and there is even no interwiki to Chinese article to judge if this is better covered there. The article is also linked from the body of only one article (unreferenced) and as a see also. Sigh. Ping me if better sources are found - right now it is hard to be sure the topic is notable, and certainly WP:OR is a major issue. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the sources listed by Jumpytoo and added by LeapTorchGear to the article show that Chinese lunar coins meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

    The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.

    Cunard (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Lualua Jr[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable filmmaker. Fails WP:NCREATIVE and WP:SIGCOV. The only reliable source is this, while the rest are blogs and gossip sites. Jamiebuba (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Doesn't meet WP:DIRECTOR or WP:GNG. I feel like the author of the article has close connection with the subject anyways → I can't find the image they uploaded anywhere public upon WP:BEFORE 1 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 04:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sources are mostly unreliable WP:MILL. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, article seems to have used every single mention of him online as sources, and I couldn't find anything more in depth than what's there in RS. Wikishovel (talk) 08:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no notability, nothing good in the refbomb.Tehonk (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom etc --Devokewater 01:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Contributor892z (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is based far too heavily on unreliable sources that are not support for notability, and says nothing about him that would be "inherently" notable in the absence of a properly sourced pass of WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Canesadooharie. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canesadooharie River[edit]

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

This is a recorded name used by Iroquois for a river, which has its own article at Canesadooharie. The identity of this river has been disputed, but there were never two rivers (or anything else) called Canesadooharie. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article adds nothing new that is not already covered article at Canesadooharie. It is a duplicate article that is best deleted. Paul H. (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Canesadooharie, as a plausible title. PamD 08:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect if mentioned. No need for a DAB with only 1 entry and there doesn't appear to be others. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Canesadooharie, since the page has existed for a while (not always as a disambiguation) and redirects are cheap. Hatman31 (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Temisan Emmanuel[edit]

Temisan Emmanuel (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 or WP:NACTOR. Sources are paid, WP:PROMO and regular Run of the mill. Jamiebuba (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular Conceptor[edit]

Molecular Conceptor (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. Google returns plenty results, but most are connected sources or routine coverage. I didn't find anything independent, secondary and in-depth.

The stub has been around since 2008, created by a single-purpose COI editor, with no content other than defining what the software is. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Bolbukh[edit]

Olga Bolbukh (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 individual. Nothing online can be found to indicate this person is a notable actresses. Entire articles is largely unsourced and written like a resume and as a magazine article instead of an encyclopedic one. All links in the references section are 99% dead links and IMDB doesn't count as a reliable source. No inline citations are used anywhere to back up anything in the article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canuck Eats[edit]

Canuck Eats (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)

Promotional, fails WP:NCORP. As the article indicates, the business primarily operates in small cities, making most coverage local. The non-local coverage consists of PR reprints, with a couple sentences in Financial Post as an example of a type of service being the only exception. ~ A412 talk! 18:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Misleading, this is the most well known surviving successor (millions of impressions on google search per year) to the now defunct Feastify (which had doordash buy out its old name Dash Delivers) operations that spans to 100 cities in Canada, which is my next project to create a page for. Canada as a G7 country has no articles pertaining to its delivery industry, I'm taking initiative to change that. Wt2024 (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is literally nothing meaningful in the way of coverage and the idea (per the creator of the article) that Canada is somehow under-represented is a patent lie and laughable. Aside from that, there is maybe one single article of dubious origin that could be considered in depth and nothing else. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 02:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails NCORP by the looks of it.-KH-1 (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Found more coverage by Pattison Media and Best Startup Canada Magazine, not researching doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Wt2024 (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails NCORP, promotional. Tehonk (talk) 06:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep - @Tehonk IF you decide the referenced text is not necessary, why delete the entire original reasoning written? Wt2024 (talk) 06:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didaskalia (theatre)[edit]

Didaskalia (theatre) (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 Cambridge Introduction to Theatre Studies, p. 124, indeed reports that this term "has been proposed" and is "widely used" for parts of a play text that are not spoken, including stage directions and character names. Yet the page is a mere WP:DICDEF, and no other article references it, or even uses the word in this sense. - Cal Engime (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nemona[edit]

Nemona (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 a notable character, fails WP:GNG.

Full source analysis follows:
1) Inside Games - press release - primary source - does not count towards notability
2) Automaton Media - news release - not SIGCOV
3) ScreenRant - "marginally reliable source" - fully discusses the character - SIGCOV
4) TheGamer - fully discusses the character - SIGCOV
5) GamesRadar - talks about a few social media posts - not SIGCOV
6) GameRant - talks about a few social media posts - not SIGCOV
7) Inside Games - news release about a Twitter post - not SIGCOV
8) Dexerto - "rarely engages in serious journalism" - does not count towards notability per WP:VG/S
9) Engadget - Review of Scarlet/Violet - not SIGCOV
10) Inside Games - news release about Nemona - not SIGCOV
11) Inside Games - short impressions of several characters - not SIGCOV
12) Automaton Media - DLC plot summary - not SIGCOV

Total SIGCOV: 2 - GNG typically requires several SIGCOV to be notable. Even with ScreenRant and TheGamer, it does not quite cross the threshold. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, as mentioned below, ScreenRant and GameRant are considered content farms I generally try to avoid, so I am giving it a lot of credit by citing it as proof towards notability. Whether they actually count towards notability is usually debatable even if they are usable for lore explanation purposes. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pokémon Scarlet and Violet – I agree the notability of this subject is flimsy, though I would be willing to change to a keep if just a little bit more SIGCOV was found. I think flat out deletion is a bad idea here, and the page history should be preserved. A redirect to Pokémon Scarlet and Violet seems fair. Per the comments and sources found from Kung Fu Man below, I think I can say weak keep. λ NegativeMP1 20:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not adding my full vote here just yet but I would also suggest either List of Pokémon characters#Paldea or Rivals (Pokémon)#Nemona as alternative redirect targets as the subject of the article are more densely covered there than in the "Scarlet and Violet" article. CaptainGalaxy 00:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect: It seems feasible to cover most information in above mentioned articles. IgelRM (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is not the strongest of articles on Wikipedia, but the assertion that, say, #10 is not sigcov isn't supported by WP:GNG. GNG does not have this standard at all, and in fact emphasizes that an article can constitute a show of notability even if it's not the primary subject of the article. That the article is a news release about Nemona is completely immaterial to the fact that the article goes on to provide significant coverage of Nemona. The summary of #11 as short impressions is also incredibly misleading. Not only is the author's impression of Nemona the title of the article, not only is it the intro to the article, but of the approximately 27 paragraphs, the article spends 40 percent of those paragraphs talking about Nemona. It seems like your objection is not that it's short impressions, but that these impressions exist in an article that discusses other characters as well - a personal issue, and not an issue relevant to GNG. Furthermore, #12 has a DLC plot summary, but it is not strictly plot summary in any way. To my knowledge, the plot is not about Nemona becoming unusually strong unusually fast, this is discussion by the author of the article about her growth and how it relates to the persona she developed. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Cukie Gherkin (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
  • Comment When it comes to Screen Rant, specifically, I will say that WP:RSP listing it as a "marginally reliable source" is not exactly the full story. It is a low-quality source (to a large extent a listicle content farm) whose uses on Wikipedia are limited. It is reliable enough for straightforward statements of fact within its area of competency (entertainment, roughly speaking), but not for anything remotely controversial, WP:BLP material, or any kind of analysis. It is likewise not a source that should be used for establishing WP:Notability or assessing WP:Due weight. It's also worth noting that WP:RSP links to WP:VGRS#Valnet, which says In general, these sites should not be used to demonstrate notability outside of periods they were considered reliable or prior to being purchased by Valnet, due to concerns over undue weight and content farming. (Screen Rant was purchased by Valnet in 2015, according to our article). TompaDompa (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is a bit of analysis in scholarly source here but it is just a bachelor thesis, so barely acceptable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do love sources like these, but yeah, if it's just a bachelor thesis, the only real angle I think can show it's worthwhile to use is if the author has a history of published material, a history of commonly cited material, and/or the thesis is frequently cited. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I do feel the source analysis of #11 is a bit unfair, as a good chunk of the article is just about her, and it does give both initial and post impressions regarding her character. #5 also offers some commentary, albeit light, about the character and I do think gives a decent commentary on fan reaction. There is this article from Comic Book Resources too, which while gameplay leaning does actually discuss her in the context of past rivals (and yes I know CBR blah blah Valnet but it's an editorial). Anime Corner also has a full article, and I've used the website source in a GAN.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm dubious about Anime Corner; the writers are entirely freelancers. It's about one step removed from a blog. If people really think it's a reliable source then I'll go along with it, though I still don't think it would remove all notability concerns. ScreenRant and CBR are both ValNet which means we'd be relying on at least one content farm piece to prove GNG is passed. As is widely known, content farms do not care whether something is "important", and will write an article on a single bean on the ground of a game if it will draw SEO traffic.
    I machine translated #11 and it is very, very shallow coverage. It essentially sums up to "Nemona was more crazy about Pokemon battles than I expected, but is otherwise what I expected". I simply do not believe it would qualify as SIGCOV in a million years. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like this is misstating what is said. The article says that she matched the certain expectations they had, but that they didn't expect this angle of her character. They also identified that her battle mania went above any other character prior. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 04:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I feel editorials from Valnet are fine for notability usage, especially if they can augment existing sources (the CBR and Anime Corner sources work together), or we can illustrate the author has work in other publications. As for Anime Corner itself it's under "Other reliable" on WP:VG/S. Regarding reference 11, while I'm not going to sit here and argue it's somehow massive, it is the primary focus of the article and received several paragraphs, so arguing that it's basically a "short impression" does feel inaccurate Zx.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am going to paste the (admittedly shoddy) machine translation here for reference:
Extended content
So, the first person is "Nemo". As I said at the beginning, my impression before its release was that it was a "reliable older sister trainer." A friend of the main character and a senior Pokémon trainer, he has a bright and energetic personality, and simply loves Pokémon battles. He's a classic character, just like the one pictured in the picture. Even during his first battle with the main character, he kindly advises, "This is my first Pokemon battle! I hope you enjoy it!" However, there was a somewhat fearless smile on his face as he challenged the battle, and I thought that as a senior trainer, he would not let you win easily, and that he must not let his guard down. Now, as for my impressions after interacting with Nemo after its release, well... it was mostly right, right? He's bright, energetic, and reliable. Yes, most of it was just as I had impressions. Except that the level of "I just love Pokemon battles!" was dozens of times more than I expected. He challenges every trainer he sees to a fight, says "Let's fight!" during battles, and is aware of his battle-crazy side, and the more he gets into battles, the more he gets involved in battles. The word "Nemo Victims' Association", which is made up of people who were killed in the attack, started popping up. Anyway, I love Pokemon battles too much! Nowadays, my impression of Nemo is that of a "battle junkie". It is also at a level unparalleled in any previous series. And the best part is the line "It will bear fruit" that he says every time he fights the main character. He senses talent in the main character and is trying to develop him into a trainer who can compete on an equal footing with him... Who could have predicted that people would say on the internet that Nemo "looks like Hisoka from HUNTER x HUNTER"?
  • I will let people gauge for themselves if this is SIGCOV that can support an article, it's more of an explanation of her personality than analysis of the character. It's simply telling people how the character is like. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But that's not the extent of the article's discussion of Nemona. The first paragraph of the article comments on their feelings about her being an older sister type. The next paragraph talks about how they appreciated that Nemona turned out to be more than that. They also frame the article about talking about the gap (gap being a term typically used in Japanese to refer to contradictory personality traits). Even in your quote, the author makes the point that her battle craziness is to an extent unprecedented in the series. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized that even adding a translation of a part of an article might be copyright infringing, so if it is, please feel free to remove it. It is only intended for reference purposes. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kung Fu Man's explanation. I think there is enough to justify an article for now, and personally I believe we are like to see more coverage in the future (though I'm not entirely using that as leverage). CaptainGalaxy 13:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth Smit[edit]

Elisabeth Smit (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)

Don't believe this meets WP:NOTABILITY. A Google search gives virtually no results about the ship itself. BangJan1999 16:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As HNLMS Marken (1944) she would have been a commissioned vessel of the Royal Netherlands Navy. The list of minesweepers of the Royal Netherlands Navy reveals she was a 105' version of the MMS-class minesweeper. A little searching reveals enough of her history to bash together at least a start class article. As we all know, needing improvement is not a reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is information there but not every ship in the Netherlands Navy is notable, and that listing is not significant coverage, it's just a database. The current article only cites Wikipedia, and provides no indication of what distinguishes from all the other ships in the Netherlands Navy. Mrfoogles (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reference from the Dutch Wikipedia has been removed. Mjroots (talk) 07:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if not merged here MMS-class minesweeper That article more than covers the subject of wooden mine sweepers built by the Netherlands. There is nothing special about any of the individual ships.James.folsom (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not at all just another small warship with unremarkable service. After 1977 she was given a radical conversion from motor minesweeper to a three-masted passenger barquentine, for the tourist trade on the IJsselmeer. After the storm damage in 2002, she became a much-photographed cause celebre in the Netherlands, which was unresolved until 2020. There is extensive source material to expand the article further. The proposer's justification ("A Google search gives virtually no results about the ship itself") is completely false. - Davidships (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I looked for guidance on notability of ships for purposes of being a stand alone article. I didn't find anything useful so if anyone knows of any, I'll read it. With this being the case the subject of this wikipedia article needs to meet WP:GNG in order to avoid merger or deletion. Both the google.com and Google.nl sites have only a few hits and the the coverage is sparse and primary in regard to this subject. I don't see any quality sources either in the artilce itself or online that establish this as a notable topic. What would be needed is secondary sources showing significant coverage. James.folsom (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt depends what you search for. It takes time to work through the 1000+ relevant Google list entries about this ship, select the best sources, and write the story; which I will not be doing today or tomorrow (please email me if you need to know why) - Davidships (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also notice that someone using the handle "david ships" or "davidships" has posted a lot online in regard to ships, and I wonder if there is a conflict of interest occurring here.James.folsom (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC):[reply]
There isn't. What did you have in mind? WP:COI does not mean Coincidence of Interest; I came upon this ship just last month and dug around a bit here, and added to List of shipwrecks in 2002. - Davidships (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not claiming anything. It's just wise to mention it upfront if you you know your name is going to be found during WP:before for a subject, and you are voting in the AFD for that subject. James.folsom (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@James.folsom: have you considered that it's possible that the guy named "davidships" is just someone named David who likes ships? It is no crime to be passionate about a subject on the encyclopedia. Don't jump to wild conclusions about other editors without assuming good faith. Fritzmann (message me) 13:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your seeing wild conclusions where none exist. I simply observed and reported something I thought the editors here should know. James.folsom (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Googled for sources: it looks like there's some coverage, but I don't know if its only local
Apparently it was relevant to (by google translate) an election campaign for the Water Board. The notability would be because it became rentable later on in its life, and it's locally important as the "ghost ship" (google translate) because it just sat in the harbor for so long. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is my point, the sources available are all routine news coverage in the local press. Many of the sources are just facts and figures, so verifiability is met. So, we know the boat exists, but alot of boats exist. The next step here is to establish that the boat is more important and relevant to the general public, (not specialists), than the bulk of the other boats. The election stunt was notable but the boat is a bit player and the notability from the event doesn't transfer to boat. To make that work you need a source that says the the notoriety of the boat played a role in it's selection for the stunt (EG any boat could have been rented, why that one?). The ghost ship angle is also interesting but is there anything special about that boat that played a role in that phenomenon (EG if another boat had wrecked in that spot instead, would it have mattered?). Okay, so I hear it was a charter vessel for while, was it the best one, what made it more desirable or more useful or more important than other charter vessel. Sources that establish any of this or something similar are needed. The mere existence of sources doesn't equal notability. James.folsom (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"more important and relevant to the general public, (not specialists), than the bulk of the other boats." This is not how notability is established. All that is required for notability is coverage, not more coverage than other subjects in the same topic. There are a million sportsball players that have articles because they are notable, without consideration for their relative importance to other sportsball players. A subject either has coverage, or it does not. This one does. Fritzmann (message me) 13:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
your mistaken. James.folsom (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible keep. It's definitely locally notable in Muiden. If non-local notability can be shown, then definitely keep. If it can't, maybe merge it in to Muiden? It does stand out that it got converted for recreational purposes but on the other hand its probably not the only dutch recreational-converted ship either. @Mjroots says "she became a much-photographed cause celebre in the Netherlands", but according to these articles she's only relevant to local politics (unless the "Water Board" is not what I think it is.) Mrfoogles (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that if someone can find another non-local non-trade-magazine source like #2 above, then this satisfies GNG Mrfoogles (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Commissioned naval vessels have always been considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per my above comment. Fritzmann (message me) 13:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, as “that one boat that got turned into a civilian-rentable boat and sat half-broken on the IJsselmeer for 18 years and got called a “ghost ship”, rather than as “this one ship in the Dutch navy.” Mrfoogles (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think the argument here is more convincing as a delete vote, but I really like the concise way that MrFoogles sums it up. James.folsom (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Muhammad Akram Khan[edit]

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

This was nominated for deletion last month however this was kept, not sure why.. maybe because the nom was sock? anyways, this one is clearly promotional BLP about a non-notable advocate. as mentioned in the previous nom, there is no reference that is directly about him. Fails WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no it was held to be ineligible for soft deleted. 175.107.25.226 (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has held state/province–wide office, that is chairman executive of punjab br council, hence clearly passes notability criteria for politicians see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people). Moreover, He is member of legislative body bar council since 2010, it does secondary legislation. Had position held by him was not notable President Zardari and then CM Shehbaz Sharif would not congratulate on his being elected as chairman executive. see https://www.nawaiwaqt.com.pk/E-Paper/Lahore/2010-01-31/page-1/detail-11. This is also a source directly about him. His name is in the headnote. International media coverage further strengthens notability. see https://www.tribuneindia.com/2010/20100808/cth1.htm. if any editior finds anything promotional in this article, the said content may kindly be pointed out and removed. 202.83.170.202 (talk) 08:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
President of the Bar Council is not a political position. The article is largely PROMO in its entirety. I'd remove most of it, and then what's left is a simple line or two. I don't see notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— 202.83.170.202 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: "Licensed lawyer" per one website, about sums it up. NO coverage to indicate anything different for notability than the other thousands of lawyers in the world. Largely confirmation of where he's worked, being a simple bio. Oaktree b (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article itself should be kept because the person held an elected position as former head of state/province–wide office statutory body The Punjab Bar Council, hence clearly passes.WP:NPOL. However, some information needs to be removed particularly last section of this Article. It passes WP:GNG especially because sources do not have to be available online or written in English. DavidSchop (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— DavidSchop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Dear if you would like to see in detail, the Punjab Bar Council is different, it not only does secondary legislation at state/province level but also under the constituion of Pakistan sends its reprensetative for appointment of superior judiciary. Moreover, Sources are not passing mentions, some of the Urdu language sources mention the name of this person in its headline. The fact that he held elected position makes him politiican at state/province level. DavidSchop (talk) 03:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Okaihau Branch. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rangiahua railway station[edit]

Rangiahua railway station (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 station that never saw a single passenger. The line it was built for never opened. A cursory before search found zero. This is quite simply not a notable subject and the article never should have been created. Article was previously PRODed and then dePRODed with a rationale of "you have to prove it's not notable" while providing zero evidence otherwise. At best this should be a redirect to Okaihau Branch. According to that article, "The Rangiahua section was essentially complete: the line wound downhill to the settlement and a station yard complete with platform was built, though the station building itself was not erected."

So, we are dealing with a station that wasn't even completed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New Zealand. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what I actually said when deprodding was "If sources to expand this cannot actually be found (rather than just assumed not to exist) then it should be merged or redirected not deleted", based on an PROD rationale that appeared to based only the content of the article. I do not appreciate the misrepresentation. I do not assert that this is notable, just that if it is not it should be redirected not deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Okaihau Branch; that would appear to be the logical thing to do given that it had been built. Schwede66 19:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. Non-notable, unused station. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 20:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Liverpool#Demonyms and identity. There is consensus, except on the part of the creator Liverpolitan1980, that there is no basis for an article about a "Liverpolitan identity". But towards the end of the discussion a WP:ATD has gained acceptance, i.e. a redirect to Liverpool, where the term "Liverpolitan" is discussed among others. Since this outcome is not in conflict with the arguments for deletion made in the first half of the discussion, I am implementing it. I am also moving the redirected article from "Liverpolitan identity" to simply "Liverpolitan", since the redirect pertains to the demonym, not the supposed "identity". Sandstein 19:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpolitan identity[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Liverpolitan identity (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)
Renominating this per my earlier close. There are a plethora of issues. Its basis is a WP:FRINGE theory with addition WP:original research on top. WP:COMMONNAME does not support it. Previous arguments suggested that it be rewritten into a new article based around the culture and context of Liverpudlian; this page is then in breach of WP:NOARTICLE. Also WP:DICDEF There are insufficient reliable sources presented to support this as being a widespread or common usage. Those available are mostly passing mentions; other sources are from vested interests (e.g. Wetherspoons!) or support the complete opposite of what the article is claiming. Reliably sourced material, such as that from the University of Liverpool Press, actually argues that Scouse is the cultural demonym of Liverpool, compared to how it is being (mis)cited here. Some sources do not even mention the topic; others are merely about people who happen to be from there.
Paging participants at the earlier AfD: @Orange sticker, Phil Bridger, Wcquidditch, Koncorde, Cullen328, Jonathan Deamer, Axad12, Redfiona99, and Liverpolitan1980:. ——Serial Number 54129 15:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. I think there is definitely room for improvement and I would welcome other contributors to input improvements to the page. There are almost definite and clear connotations to the term 'Liverpolitan' and its use throughout history, as opposed to Liverpudlian. This needs to be expanded with help from contributors. It is imperative to a fair representation of Liverpool's history. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article does not follow MOS:ID as can be seen by comparing the word 'Liverpolitan' to other terms on Google Ngram or Google Trends. Additionally, it does not meet WP:N as many of the references in the article actually contain arguments which clearly state that the term is not generally used, understood or accepted, such as the quote from Steve Rotheram on BBC Radio, thus contradicting the overall basis of this article. Orange sticker (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article makes it absolutely clear from the very outset that Scouse is the dominant demonym. It's in the lede section. It cites how the Scouse identity became popularised in the mid 20th century. It compares the much older Liverpolitan term to this, the etymology and historical context of the word. The article also explains how the term Liverpolitan has been used in a contemporary sense. The sources are news organizations. The article does not attempt to conflate the Victorian context with that of the 21st century. It merely presents the evolution of the term throughout history. Therefore, there is no attempt to present A+B=C. Each individual citation is explained exactly how they were written. There is no clear explanation as to why anyone here could possibly reach that conclusion, no specific examples, no rationale behind it and no clear attempts to improve the article itself etc...Furthermore, any deletion is also hasty and has not allowed the article enough time to develop or be improved by other contributors. For example, I have identified numerous articles within the British Newspaper archive which compare and contrast Liverpolitan to Liverpudlian. There has not been enough time to input these in to the article yet. I am able to do that as early as next week and the guidance under fringe theory advises not to assume that sources are not available simply because some editors have failed to find them. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, it must be borne in mind here that above where it says:
    Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    The system is struggling because there is a possibility the page has been mislabelled. If you change sources to "liverpolitan" you see results. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't have time to argue with every point that Liverpolitan1980 has made at various venues, but my statement in the original discussion still stands (apart from the original point 1 which was about the AfD discussion itself), as there has been no convincing response:
    1. Nearly all sources for the word I could find (especially book sources) are passing mentions of the magazine.
    2. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary.
    3. "Scouse" is in a different register. The much more commonly (than "Liverpolitan") used word "Liverpudlian" is in a slightly "posher" register as this word is claimed to be. What is the difference? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Re: WP:COMMONNAME, I suggested in the initial AfD that the article breached this policy, but I’ve subsequently realised that I was probably wrong. There are three distinct identities for people from Liverpool: Liverpudlian, Scouse and Liverpolitan – of which Liverpolitan is significantly the least common. As the article is specifically about the third of those identities, it is correctly titled. It is however a clear anomaly that no articles currently exist for the far more common Liverpudlian identity and Scouse identity (an article exists only for the Scouse accent, which is a different thing).
My personal opinion is that the article would be a great deal stronger if its scope was widened to cover all 3 identities for people from Liverpool, e.g. the differences between them, when they emerged, etc. Suggested title ‘Liverpudlian identities’. The section of the present article which concentrates on these sort of issues is significantly the strongest part of the article, which I think demonstrates my point. The real issue surrounding Liverpudlian identities, in my opinion at least, is not around the use of the word Liverpolitan but in the extent to which the term Scouse is embraced or rejected.
However, if the article is to remain solely on the Liverpolitan identity, I have discussed with the author in some detail how I believe he can improve the content to make it read less like a list of occasions on which the term Liverpolitan has been used and instead work better with his material by approaching the topic from different directions (making it about the term, rather than about when the term has been used). I would therefore be inclined to give them the opportunity to make such improvements unless the present article is rejected a priori on scope grounds (in which case I'd suggest that a widening of the scope would be preferable to deletion) . Axad12 (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will write another longer comment, but I really like Axad's idea. Red Fiona (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be a precedent for articles on collective identities at such a localised level (category: collective identity). I would also expect such an article to be very controversial! Orange sticker (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Liverpolitan identity" as a subject of any length is real problem of SYNTH / OR. There's no real discussion of such as thing as a "Liverpolitan identity". You would struggle to find much in the way of articles about "Liverpudlian identity" or "Scouse identity" because it's just not the way anyone would discuss the subject. Instead what we have, at the crux of this debate, is the word "Liverpolitan". Liverpolitan itself is a word of some historicity - but that doesn't mean it's article worthy in its own right, because very little has actually been written about it. Instead the "Liverpolitan identity" article has a bit of a laundry list of times the word Liverpolitan has been used, and in some cases the usage is part of very finite discussions about whether it should be the demonym for people from Liverpool, or more recently a much wider area as a result of the creation of the Liverpool City Region. However that doesn't so much support the idea of a "Liverpool identity" as a subject, but rather demonstrate how limited its usage is and how some people periodically advance it as an alternative and it's generally ignored. This for me falls then firmly within WP:DICDEF territory that can be summarised thusly:
  • Liverpolitan is a historic demonym for the inhabitants of Liverpool.
  • The term had some popularity around the turn of the 19th century, but the more popular demonyms Liverpudlian and Scouser have taken precedence. The term has not found widespread popularity or usage.
Echoing Orange Sticker, a lot of the content in "Liverpolitan identity" is generic Liverpool content, the given source often not mentioning the term, or when it does discuss demonyms it rejects the term, or emphasises the other terms, as the popular demonyms without getting into any further discussion of identity or culture. There's some content that talks about the evolution of the demonym that might be worth merging into the main Liverpool article in some fashion (though I haven't gone through the sources fully, I doubt is controversial, but may be a little bit of WP:OR to resolve). Some of the content is relevant to the LCR specifically or to a lesser extent Steve Rotherham. Koncorde (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:, on the other AFD I said that no matter what, better sourcing was needed. Having taken Liverpolitan1980 up on his suggestion to read the sources, here is a very brief summary (I am assuming good faith that the references I couldn't access (or did not read all of) are solid and relevant [refs 5, 6, 12, 16, 18, 21, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 43, 46, 48, 51, 61).

Mention Liverpolitan as a concept: Refs 2, 13, 15 [but says unlikely to ever be in common usage again], 20, 25, 26, 32, 35, 47 (but claims it to be a controversial name), 50, 57 Mention Liverpool but not Liverpolitan: Refs 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24, 40, 41, 42, 52, 54, 59 Refs all based on the same press release: 27, 29, 30, 53 Refs which discuss other items named Liverpolitan, not in an identity sense: 55, 56, 58 Link to an archive not a specific page so relevance cannot be assessed: Ref 7, 49 Don't mention Liverpool: Ref 9 Not a source for these purposes: ref 1 (dictionary definition) Repeats of previously used refs: Ref 28 (is ref 2 again), 38 (is 16 again), 44 (is 43 again), 45 (is 33 again), 60 (is 20 again).

I would also suggest that if the article is kept, using the structure of ref 26, explaining that it's an old world that people are trying to refresh to give an identity to the LCR, might be the way forward, because that is how most of the references that do mention it describe it.

43/44 could also do with being given its proper reference, not a ResearchGate link.

[Also, conflict of interest statement: I am very much a woolyback so really can't see this taking off.] Red Fiona (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting analysis, which I think supports my suggestion that the scope of the article needs to be widened. Axad12 (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Demonyms for Liverpool could be a possibility (per Demonyms for the United States). However it would need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and to be neutrally written. TSventon (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment I am happy (and have the time) to do one of three things.

1) Move some content in to the parent Liverpool article under the 'Demonym and identity' section. I can certainly take the most notable parts of the article and incorporate them in to the Liverpool article. Taking on board Koncorde above - there's some content that talks about the evolution of the demonym that might be worth merging into the main Liverpool article in some fashion. I can assure him that there is no WP:OR. I have certainly researched the subject though, more than most Wikipedians it seems since the subject is little referenced on the encyclopedia. Anyone would think that Scouser has been the only identity in the history of Liverpool - until I have obviously flagged the subject for further discussion.

2) There are almost certainly articles on the encyclopedia that follow the convention of 'List of demonyms', 'List of adjectivals and demonyms' etc... I am certainly happy for a re-naming of the article to List of adjectivals and demonyms in the Liverpool City Region. I can assure people that there are more than a few. One of the users above uses the word woollyback, one uses Scouser, I use Liverpolitan. The list is not exhaustive. If I do that, I need some assurances that the article would be allowed to develop in that subject without another nomination for deletion.

3) A complete re-write I simply just do not have the time to do by myself. However, I appreciate Axad12's comment above that this is part of a much wider discussion. I agree with her/him. The issue for me is that the topic is little referenced on the encyclopedia as it stands. If people are willing to re-organise and re-name this article along side working with me then I am happy to do that. I am not sure what the title would be, but 'Identities within the Liverpool City Region' could be a start?

It all depends on what way this discussion is going to go. But from where I am coming from there seems little appetite to make constructive changes to the article itself - rather to critique the need for its existence in the first place. I will need some heavy reassurances that there is not going to be a huge amount of controversy or drama with any of these three directions. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that all controversy on the current article relates to the title and the fact that the article relates to a relatively obscure corner of a much larger issue.
I can't speak for others but I'd imagine that any of your 3 suggestions above would remove those problems - as long as the coverage given to Liverpolitan is not WP:UNDUE.
(I don't think the list option works. My understanding is that Wikipedia list articles - e.g. 'List of [x]' - are supposed to list things which (in the main) already have their own articles on Wikipedia. I may be wrong on that, but the list option seems like the worst option of the 3 anyway.) Axad12 (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with option 1, however I would urge caution when writing about a collective identity as it is such a loaded topic. Expanding on your list of demonyms to include a bit more about their origins, etymology and usage would be a strong contribution to the either the Liverpool, Scouse or Liverpool City Region page, I think. Orange sticker (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the WP:OR - statements like:
  • "Over time, the Scouse identity has become entrenched within the local culture and has been intensified by those who identify more with Liverpool's maritime history and connections to overseas than they do to England itself, or the English establishment."
and
  • "The identity has also been adopted in the surrounding areas of Liverpool, most notably in Sefton and Knowsley, and to a lesser degree on the Wirral and in St Helens"
Are both at a glance at source and sentence explicitly OR. For the first sentence there is no mention in the source of maritime history etc Indeed the final paragraph attributes the Scouse identity proxy of "Scouse, not English" to "civic pride and rebellious spirit", a failure of of the Establishment, and the fact there's a lot of Irish descendants. For the second sentence meanwhile being it claims the identity has been "adopted". This isn't put forwards at all by the source and would be a very odd claim to make versus, say, it simply reflecting that Scousers have (over time) moved to those areas. The actual paper is about the impactfulness of the Scouse identity on voting, rather than any attempt to attribute "Scouse identity" to those areas or people, with the numbers used to attribute a coefficient for his statistical analysis. He is in effect saying "I interviewed some people, some said they were scouse - this is what that means for their voting habits". Using the study for other purposes is OR, and the way it is presented in the paragraph is rather blatant WP:SYNTH as it would be inferred that "Scouse, not English" would also be relevant in those other areas (which, again, isn't supported by the sources). Koncorde (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have made some improvements to the Liverpool article for contributor perusal. I feel that this is a completely fair representation of Liverpool's history. I am happy for this page to be deleted and over time perhaps the Scouse page can be expanded. Also, a simple re-direct from 'Liverpolitan identity' and 'Liverpolitan' to the Liverpool article might do the trick. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Does seem largely OR or SYNTH, most uses of the term are a line or two. Could be trimmed back to a DICDEF and incorporated into an article about Liverpool. Seems to be largely an attempt at promoting a point of view. Oaktree b (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And please don't reply with a wall of text as above; I'm frankly not interested. Oaktree b (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: TO ALL PARTICIPANTS: Please be concise. Do not write walls of text. What AFDs need is a decisive consensus and the probability of that happening is generally increased with more thoughtful participation from a diverse group of editors. When you write looong explanations, it makes it less likely that other editors will want to read all of this and participate in the discussion. Also, the options for closure here are limited: Keep, Delete, Redirect, Merge and Draftify (and sometimes Move). Do not propose editorial changes or rewriting of an article unless you are willing to do this yourself. That can be done if there is a Keep decision but are meaningless if the result isn't Keep. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 04:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Move:

My preference would be to re-name it to 'History of Liverpool identity or similar. There is a lot of potential for it to be expanded but it will need to be collaborative. There is lots to discuss such as history of the term Liverpudlian, the debate between Liverpudlian and Liverpolitan. Any rejection or support for those terms. Rejection of a scouse identity etc...but I couldn't put a lot of time in to something if it is going to be flagged rather than contributed to. That's too difficult an environment. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect/Merge:

TSventon raises a good point about Demonyms for Liverpool. If that isn't possible, the article Liverpudlians could contain short sections on the Scouse and Liverpolitans, since I understand "Liverpudlian" to be a hypernym of all groups associated with living in Liverpool. I also support Liverpolitan1980's suggestion to merge it with Liverpool under the 'Demonym and identity' section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSands-12 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A history of the identity could be an interesting article. Oaktree b (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Liverpool: After reviewing this quite a few times, I feel this is a rare case where Wikipedia:Editorial discretion should be invoked. The few sources claiming that Liverpolitan was a notable identify are substantially posterior to the period they comment on ('Liverpool', by G. Chandler published in 1957 is the most contemporaneous to the alleged strong use during the Victorian era, however he uses "Liverpolitan" as an adjective 7 times in 515 pages, including for persons as early as the 16th century). There appear to have periods where it has emerged as a moderate-to-rare-use demonym for Liverpool, but the secondary sources seem to be reaching into Wikipedia:Fringe theories, in particular when they state it was in common use in the Victorian era and represented a notable class identity difference based on social class. Looking at compendiums of primary sources such as Google nGram, Newspaper Archive, British Newspaper Archive, there is almost no usage evident before 1902... Which is a direct contradiction as this is no longer the Victorian era. Futhermore, these primary sources should be reviewed further to support any class identity difference, since the hits include many cases where 'Liverpolitan' is not a demonym, in particular many horse racing almanachs and journals reporting on "Liverpool Plate" (a horse that ran frequently in the 1900s and 1910s, and seems to have been advertised as a breeding horse and included in horse genealogical information for several decades after), and mentions of the periodical 'Liverpolitan' which was published seemingly from the 1930s to the 1940s. As an encyclopedia, we should not be aiming to "correct the record" and the above comments are clearly Wikipedia:Original research which should not be included in any article. However, editorial discretion means we should not give undue weight to this minority viewpoint, while many of the sources in this very article mention that liverpolitan is so rare a demonym it is almost unknown of, and proceed to reference ultimately the same few sources (Tony Crowley and John Belchem in particular). The article should be merged into the Liverpool article's section on demonyms and identitiy - which has already largely been done - while paying attention to not overemphasize this viewpoint versus the significantly better established 'Liverpudlian' and 'Scouse', but this last point is going beyond this AfD. Shazback (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Regarding the suggestion to rename the article / redirect to a separate self-standing article such as Demonyms for Liverpool or History of Liverpool identity, I would strongly suggest using the Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles backward approach. Identifying three high-quality sources that can be used as the basis for the article would be highly valuable to avoid cases where passing mentions are relied on too heavily. Although slightly outside the scope of this AfD, sourcing for the article feels a bit like Wikipedia:Citation overkill... Many of the sources are documenting context which is not leveraged strongly by the topic or section it is used in (e.g., the current revision has a section on etymology where none of the six inline citations actually comment on the etymology of liverpolitan, but another source cited in other sections - Tony Crowley's Scouse: A Social and Cultural History has an entire appendix covering the etymology of demonyms for Liverpool), or feel like an indiscriminate list of occasions where a reliable source has used the word. Building a good quality starter article from a limited number of high quality sources would most clearly establish the topic's notability and its relevance for Wikipedia. Shazback (talk) 06:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • My research so far shows that the term Liverpudlian is first used in 1833. There are some suggestions that it was derogatory or humourous. In 1901, I can find an argument in the British Newspaper Archive that the term Liverpolitan should be adopted in its place. The term Scouser as an identifier comes later - during the second world war as a term used in the British armed forces. That research might change but we will not know that without the opportunity to put the subject out there in order for editor discretion to take place naturally.
    The historicity of Liverpool demonyms is, therefore, evolving. I think this is a fascinating subject which is worthy of more discussion and expansion. There is also lots to say about the term Woolyback and how Liverpool identity is perceived both inside and outside of the city boundaries. I would suggest there is scope for a separate article with obvious collaboration, peer review and editor discretion. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Liverpool. There doesn't seem to be enough significant coverage to justify a separate article, at least under the current title, and it seems to me to involve too much OR/SYN. See also concerns above about NOTDICT and RGW, and Shazback's comments about the sourcing. There may be scope for an article about the Liverpool cultural identity, but this isn't it (and certainly not under this title). Brunton (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to disambiguation page and re-name to 'Liverpolitan'.

Edits made to page. Suggestion to re-name the article to 'Liverpolitan' and convert to a disambiguation page as per link to Wiktionary. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation page is not needed as we don't have multiple notable topics that could be titled "Liverpolitan". It's doubtful that we even have one, as is being discussed here. What's left of the article now makes it even clearer that a redirect to Liverpool is appropriate. Brunton (talk) 09:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 19:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of deserters from James II to William of Orange[edit]

List of deserters from James II to William of Orange (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 principal source of this article is The Complete Peerage (2nd edition), pp. 658–661 (the 1st edition does not help much here). That part is an appendix titled "Principal Persons who Joined the Prince of Orange", which draws from memoirs of the 2nd Earl of Chesterfield and a book by William Dugdale. Still, it is just Dugdale and Cokayne's judgement of who are "principal" enough to be listed. I do not see that every list from The Complete Peerage is notable as a stand-alone list article, especially given the large number of people deserted to William during the Glorious Revolution. Given that there are quite a few unknown personnel (such as "Squire Bray") in the list, it seems better off to have the deserters in a category rather than a stand-alone list. ネイ (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sydney Metro West#Planning. Sandstein 19:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosehill metro station[edit]

Rosehill metro station (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)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Regarding SNG, rail stations are not presumed wp:notable . Further this one does not exist, it is just planned. Coverage regarding the station is just that one is planned. Material could be a paragraph in the Sydney Metro West rail line article. North8000 (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Rawlings[edit]

Angela Rawlings (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 due to lack of significant coverage. None of the sources in the article are independent of the subject, or SIGCOV for that matter, and I was unable to find any SIGCOV during a search. The best that I could find was an interview from 2018 that didn't contain any independent prose from the author, who also states that she has collaborated with the subject in the past. Alvaldi (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Iceland, and Canada. Alvaldi (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Language, and Poetry. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: sources seem to support established notability, and she has a new area of notability as the nominated candidate for 2024 Icelandic presidential election on behalf of a glacier. PamD 09:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PamD I might be missing something as I'm not seeing significant and independent sources in the article. Could you please link to what you beleive are the WP:THREE best significant sources about the subject? Note that being a candidate in itself is not enough to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Alvaldi (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added one scholarly paper for a start, 20 pages analysing her major poem. Works based on that same poem have appeared in various festivals. The 2012 Poet-in-Residence post is notability in itself: there will be extensive coverage, possibly in offline sources, in Australian media. PamD 12:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And added a review in The Antigonish Review, not open-access but available online via Wikipedia Library. PamD 14:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I have added some more reviews of the Wide slumber for lepidopterists. Perhaps too many. But these seem to me to help establish notability (subject of multiple independent reviews). (Msrasnw (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y.O.U.N.G[edit]

Y.O.U.N.G (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)

Very non-notable band. No reliable sources or any successful releases by them upon WP:BEFORE. Rydex64 (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 mayors of Lakeland, Florida. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gow Fields[edit]

Gow Fields (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:NPOL. Coverage is very much routine and local for a mayor who served for four years. Article created by sockpuppet in violation of block. AusLondonder (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Florida. AusLondonder (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect >>>>List of mayors of Lakeland, Florida
  • Delete and/or redirect. Mayors are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to be shown to pass WP:NPOL #2 on significant press coverage that enables us to write a substantive article about their political impact, but this isn't citing nearly enough sourcing to pass that bar. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect per previous votes. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - does not have sufficient sources to demonstrate notability. Perhaps there are in some of the newspaper archives given his 21 years on the city commission as well as term as mayor in a city of 115,000. Patapsco913 (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 11:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Killface (2018 film)[edit]

Killface (2018 film) (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 significant coverage in reliable sources per WP:NFILM, just routine film listings and a passing mention in a news blog [4] were all I could find in a WP:BEFORE search. Wikishovel (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Africa and Canada. Wikishovel (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, with no reliable source coverage in real media shown at all — and if anybody's got the skills to find the kind of sourcing needed to salvage a badly-sourced Canadian film, it would be me, but I can't find anything notability-building that's been overlooked either. Also, "Best Student Film at the Vegas Movie Awards" is not a notability-making award under WP:NFILM either — even if you're going for "won an award" as your film's notability claim, the award still has to be a notable award that gets media coverage, which that isn't. As near as I can tell, it appears to be one of those fly-by-night fake film festivals that doesn't really screen films for the general public at all, and instead exists as an "award mill" where any self-promoting wannabe can buy themselves an "award" so that they can talk up their film as an "award winner" — literally the only things I can find on the web that talk about the Vegas Film Awards at all are press releases self-published by the "winning" filmmakers, and that does not a notable award make.
    Note also Patrick Lualua Jr, another recent creation by the same editor about this film's director. Bearcat (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Per norm. Does not meet WP:NFILM. Only sources are IMDb which are not WP:RS. Jamiebuba (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bearcat has said all that needs to be said, nothing to add, can't find anything other than listings either, definitely doesn't pass any notability criteria at all.Tehonk (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per norm --Devokewater 01:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 08:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryo Nakano[edit]

Ryo Nakano (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)

Stats stub on a footballer that played a small part in 3 matches before seemingly disappearing. The only Japanese source that I could find that might be about him was Gekisaka, but this is an interview of a school student so clearly falls foul of WP:YOUNGATH. In Singaporean media, ignoring all the coverage from Albirex, which is not independent of Nakano, we only have SPL1, SPL2 and Borneo Bulletin, all of which are just trivial mentions. Based on this evidence, doesn't look to pass WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 08:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanders Saurajen[edit]

Sanders Saurajen (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)

Played only 138 mins of football before leaving the sport to pursue a career in dentistry. Now, GIFC is obviously not an independent source as it was his employer at the time, so does not count towards WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC, both of which require multiple sources independent of the subject. In terms of independent sourcing, I found nothing better than Straits Times, a trivial mention, SPL, also a trivial mention and from the FA of Singapore as well so probably not independent, and Active SG Circle, which contains 4 mentions in a match report. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John O'Brennan[edit]

John O'Brennan (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 have doubts about notability, as there are quite few independent sources in the article, most of the refs are his own university's website. --HPfan4 (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politics, and Ireland. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C5 at least. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. As mentioned above, passes WP:PROF parts 5, and by the look of stuff like this (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) from both Irish national news outlets and EuroNews, he passes part 7 (note part "a" of that) too. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 11:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NPROF does appear to be met. That said, the article needs significant cleanup. In its current state it is a (frankly embarrassing) puff-piece in which the supposed "references" do not support the text, and it was clearly written by someone (apparently an SPA and/or COI contributor) who was more interested in promoting the subject than in creating neutral content based on reliable and verifiable sources (to discuss rather than to promote the topic/subject). Guliolopez (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My thoughts are the same as Guliolopez: While the article itself is in terrible shape, the subject of the article is above the threshold of notability. CeltBrowne (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify until the article can be re-written properly. It's in pretty bad shape. Problem with WP:NPROF is that it's difficult to find good references to un-puff an article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the usual approach is just to strip it down rather than trying to bolster the puffery that is already there. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As noted above, the subject clearly passes WP:PROF#5 (and seemingly #7 as well). Sal2100 (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 07:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Chirimuuta[edit]

Gary Chirimuuta (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)

Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 07:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 07:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thullum Kaalam[edit]

Thullum Kaalam (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:NFILM. Two of the sources are passing mentions in media reports about a different film Sokkali. I checked 2 spots where reviews are posted [5] [6] and could not find any reviews for this film (Das released on the same day). Entire article depends on Behindwoods article which is not long enough to make this film notable. DareshMohan (talk) 06:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tencent Games. Liz Read! Talk! 07:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lightspeed LA[edit]

Lightspeed LA (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)

Game studio of Tencent. Standalone notability appears insufficient, perhaps WP:TOOSOON. IgelRM (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and California. IgelRM (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Tencent Games as not passing WP:NCORP. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After five years, they've never actually created a game, so this is more notable for being yet another gaming industry money effigy pit more than for its actual value as a game studio. Nate • (chatter) 20:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The studio deserves a page. They've just announced their first game. Wariorio10 (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Announcing a game doesn't give you a free pass to have an article about your game and studio, since Wikipedia is not for advertising spam - it needs an encyclopedic reason to exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    People come to Wikipedia for information. It doesn't matter if it's a little bit of information or not, as long as the article provides accurate information, it deserves to exist. This page can be expanded in the future over time. Wariorio10 (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Accuracy alone is insufficient for inclusion. Cortador (talk) 09:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Draftify given the announced game may come to fruition. But this obviously attracts WP:GNG. Put it this way, if the studio's notability hinges on the studio's announcement of Last Sentinel, an article for Last Sentinel itself would be draftified for being WP:TOOSOON. Pre-release coverage for things yet to materialise should always be dealt with caution as the coverage is largely reliant about what the studio is saying about itself. This is indicated by the presser-style news articles, and inclusion of interviews and YouTube channels. The studio just hasn't reached a point yet where anything can be said about it other than what the studio is announcing and telling media itself. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Tencent Games. The studio isn't notable by itself. One announced game won't change that, and sources are more likely to report on that game than on the studio specifically.
  • Merge to Tencent Games as WP:ATD, unable to find anything that meets GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 19:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 colleges and universities in Metro Manila. Liz Read! Talk! 04:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southeast Asian College[edit]

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

Single source, fails WP:GNG Hariboneagle927 (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to List of colleges and universities in Metro Manila per WP:ATD. GSearch, GNews and GNews Archive Search turned out no reliable sources. There are a lot of false positives in GScholar. Closest refs that I got were two closure warnings from CHED due to bad performance at the Nursing Board exam. However, both were only passing mentions. --Lenticel (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 universities and colleges in Iloilo. Liz Read! Talk! 07:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Therese – MTC Colleges[edit]

St. Therese – MTC Colleges (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, no non-primary source Hariboneagle927 (talk) 10:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradelykooper and Hariboneagle927: Would you be fine with a Redirect to List of universities and colleges in Iloilo as per WP:ATD? --Lenticel (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Pierre Price[edit]

Michael Pierre Price (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 finding anything to substantiate the notability of this artist per WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG. The article is mainly referenced to primary sources from a group exhibition called "Techspressionism", in which he showed an artwork. An online BEFORE search finds lots of social media, and user-submitted content, and more primary sources. I found one good news source, [7] but that is not enough to put him over the bar, as what is needed are multiple, independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. WP:COI seems evident. Netherzone (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement over the quality of sources found. It would be great if those brought up in this discussion could be added to the article. And also, does the article creator, User:Gwanwata have a response here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I am not finding sufficient RS sourcing for this article. The coverage is mostly local (Arizona) of regional shows. The artist is not part of any notable collections, nor been part of any notable exhibitions. There is no reliable sourcing for biographical information presented. The article is WP:PROMO and fails WP:ARTIST. I am finding nothing to bring it up to notable. Sentences like "In 2010 he made the bold decision to leave the gaming industry behind and pursue his new calling as a Techspressionist artist. Combining his technical expertise with artistic vision, he began creating unique and thought-provoking artworks that explore the relationship between technology and human expression." are not encyclopedic. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I fail to see how the article subject meets GNG, and there is no indication the artist meets the notability criteria for visual artists, NARTIST. There is one good source, AZ Sun, but the other one mentioned above by Hobit is a two paragraph modified press release announcing the show, it's a very week source. Netherzone (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Netherzone. I am the subject of this article and I understand that I have a conflict of interest, but I would like to work through the process to fix the issues here. I am in uncharted waters with regards to how Wikipedia operates, but I do believe I have substantive sources on both the game design side of my career and also for my art career. What I have done in my 30 years as a game designer is much greater than my art career, but I am hopeful that there is a good case to be made on my behalf for me as an artist and game designer. However, let me say that my sources are strong for the game industry as I have reviewed the Wikipedia pages of past colleagues this week. I would appreciate any guidance you might have in how best to move forward. I have new sources that are not currently being used in my article, but I don't know how to present them and who to present them to, since it looks like I should not make edits here on my own because of the conflict of interest. Thank you for your attention and help. ConradJens (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ConradJens, Thank you for your message and for disclosing that you are the subject of the article, welcome to Wikipedia. You are free to post on this AfD discussion. Just so you know, in compliance with WP:COI you should not edit articles about yourself or close associates or family (other than minor corrections and things like punctuation fixes), and if you create any new articles they should be run through Articles for Creation, rather than created directly in article space.
COI editing is discouraged because introduces systemic bias into the encyclopedia, as well as potenital original research and non-neutral material, and promotional content.
If you have sources to share about your work in the game industry, post those references and links here for assessment. At this time the article only has one decent source, the Arizona Sun article. A general rule of thumb is there should be three solid references that are significant coverage published in reliable sources that are fully independent of the subject to definitively establish notability.
Good sources would be newspaper articles (not press releases, calendar listings or the like); reviews about your work, games, or publications in reliable sources (not blogs, social media, or primary souces like user-submitted content, interviews, etc.); book chapters or significant coverage in journal articles about you or your work. These should be independent, not written by your or your close associates or colleagues. Wikipedia is interested in what neutral others have said about you and/or your work in reliable sources, not what one says about themself. This is how the integrity of the encyclopedia is maintained. Hope that helps. Netherzone (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone, I would like to address the issues in two stages. I'd like to first deal with any of the source problems with my game design career that have been brought up. And then afterward in separate comments I will work on providing more sources for my art career. One thing I am baffled by is the complete removal of my design work at Coleco. I have sources for this so this needs to be addressed. First off - TSR. I worked at TSR from 1980-1983.
Dungeons & Dragons Expert Rulebook ISBN: 0-935696-29-6 copyright 1980/1 (Credit inside front cover)
https://www.americanroads.us/DandD/DnD_Expert_Rules_Cook.pdf (pdf included to show my credit)
https://www.legrog.org/biographies/michael-price (this source demonstrates game design credits for Gamma and products and the french translations that I worked on for the French version of D&D) And legrog.org is source reference [1] on The Cleansing War of Garik Blackhand Wikipedia page.
https://web.archive.org/web/20050122225806/http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showcreator&creatorid=3085 (an additional source showing some of my credits while at TSR.) pen-paper.net is an external link mentioned on Patrick Lucien Price and Lawrence Schick Wikipedia pages.
ps://ia802909.us.archive.org/4/items/Space_Gamer_42/Space_Gamer_42.pdf (this is the review article of They've Invaded Pleasantville which is source reference [2] on They've Invaded Pleasantville Wikipedia page and the review mentions Michael Price as the game designer.)
The copyrights of the products I worked on establish my timeframe as a game designer at TSR.
https://www.mobygames.com/company/7532/indigo-moon-productions-inc/ (this source demonstrates most of the games that Indigo Moon Productions developed and back up the statement on my Wikipedia page.) Additionally, mobygames.com is an accepted resource for Wikipedia pages of a number game industry individuals. In particular, mobygames.com is source reference [2] for game designer Lawrence Schick who is a former colleague on mine.
https://rawg.io/games/dragon-dice (this source demonstrates that Indigo Moon Productions was the developer of the Dragon Dice game for Interplay.)
As for Coleco game design references, I present the following sources.
Michael Price - MobyGames (again this an accepted resource on a number of Wikipedia pages related to the game industry.)
I believe that these sources address the issues brought up for the game design section and also establishes a solid foundation for keeping the article on Michael Pierre Price. Addressing the issues with the art career section will follow in the next few days. Thank you for your attention. ConradJens (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is a mess, but I agree with Hobit. Much of it could be/should be deleted, particularly the WP:PROMO parts, but there are sufficient sources for a stub. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The two sources Hobit noted are good enough to establish notability. TLAtlak 03:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - I have a sincere question to the experienced editors or watchers. I may have missed some guideline changes about notability criteria for BLPs – things do change quickly around here – but I can't find anything about changes to GNG or NARTIST. It's always been my understanding that at least THREE solid sources that are independent, significant coverage, and published in a reliable sources (national or international being preferred over local) were required. Q: Is one good-quality local source, and one local press release/calendar event all it takes now to establish the notability of a person? Netherzone (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Netherzone,
This question might warrant a talk page discussion on the pertinent policy page. But my understanding about the "law of Three" (that's my term, not Wikipedia's), is that editors in AFD frequently ask for the best three reliable sources (sometimes out of dozens included in the article) as a way of gauging whether or not a subject is notable. It's not a policy guideline or recommendation, it comes from a User essay, User:RoySmith/Three best sources. But it's a valid question to ask to help AFD discussion focus on what's important. Unfortunately, over time, it has been misunderstood by some editors as being a policy rule but it's just a shorthand to help editors come to a decision on whether or not sufficient sourcing exists and to cut through refspam on some articles. But, by contrast, our BLPPROD guide only requires one reliable source to be preesnt on an article to prevent deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Liz! I guess I'm still a bit confused; I understand it applies to BLPPROD. Could you please, when you have a moment, clarify if that means that GNG and/or NARTIST is met by only one reliable source? (The reason I'm asking here is I'm considering withdrawing the nom if that is the case.) Netherzone (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG does say sources, plural. -- asilvering (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There's currently just a single source (Arizona Daily Sun) providing anything close to significant coverage in a reliable source, and that looks like just fairly routine coverage of a local art show. ConradJens says above that they are the subject of the article, and that they have possible additional sources. It could be moved to ConradJens user space if they want to try to cut back the unsourced promotion and add reputable sources for everything. Elspea756 (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. I am copying this message here because it was placed above in direct response to my ongoing conversation with Netherzone a couple of days ago, but I see that new comments need to be added here. My apologies if I initially posted this comment in the wrong place. I am trying to make sure the information I am providing helps address some of the issues previously identified.
    Netherzone, I would like to address the issues in two stages. I'd like to first deal with any of the source problems with my game design career that have been brought up. And then afterward in separate comments I will work on providing more sources for my art career. One thing I am baffled by is the complete removal of my design work at Coleco. I have sources for this so this needs to be addressed. First off - TSR. I worked at TSR from 1980-1983.
    Dungeons & Dragons Expert Rulebook ISBN: 0-935696-29-6 copyright 1980/1 (Credit inside front cover)
    https://www.americanroads.us/DandD/DnD_Expert_Rules_Cook.pdf (pdf included to show my credit)
    https://www.legrog.org/biographies/michael-price (this source demonstrates game design credits for Gamma and products and the french translations that I worked on for the French version of D&D) And legrog.org is source reference [1] on The Cleansing War of Garik Blackhand Wikipedia page.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20050122225806/http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showcreator&creatorid=3085 (an additional source showing some of my credits while at TSR.) pen-paper.net is an external link mentioned on Patrick Lucien Price and Lawrence Schick Wikipedia pages.
    https://ia802909.us.archive.org/4/items/Space_Gamer_42/Space_Gamer_42.pdf (this is the review article of They've Invaded Pleasantville which is source reference [2] on They've Invaded Pleasantville Wikipedia page and the review mentions Michael Price as the game designer.)
    The copyrights of the products I worked on establish my timeframe as a game designer at TSR.
    https://www.mobygames.com/company/7532/indigo-moon-productions-inc/ (this source demonstrates most of the games that Indigo Moon Productions developed and back up the statement on my Wikipedia page.) Additionally, mobygames.com is an accepted resource for Wikipedia pages of a number game industry individuals. In particular, mobygames.com is source reference [2] for game designer Lawrence Schick who is a former colleague on mine.
    https://rawg.io/games/dragon-dice (this source demonstrates that Indigo Moon Productions was the developer of the Dragon Dice game for Interplay.)
    As for Coleco game design references, I present the following sources.
    Michael Price - MobyGames (again this an accepted resource on a number of Wikipedia pages related to the game industry.)
    I believe that these sources address the issues brought up for the game design section and also establishes a solid foundation for keeping the article on Michael Pierre Price. Addressing the issues with the art career section will follow in the next few days. Thank you for your attention.
    ConradJens (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I checked at least the first few links when you originally posted them. They don't change my view, as they are as you say just "credits". Yes, they show you worked on these projects, but what we are looking for is what is described at WP:GNG, which is basically in-depth coverage by reliable sources, like multiple paragraphs written in a book or a reputable newspaper. Elspea756 (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the sources provided by ConradJens do little to better the case for meeting WP:GNG. But, wouldn't the review of They've Invaded Pleasantville in The Space Gamer contribute toward meeting WP:CREATIVE? See #3 "major role" in work that was critically reviewed? How many of these would be needed? -- Jaireeodell (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you cite the review you are describing? Elspea756 (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Barton, William A. (August 1981). "Capsule Reviews". The Space Gamer. Steve Jackson Games (42): 31. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the links ConradJens, however these are databases, credits, name-checks or user-submitted content. In the same way that WP does not consider IMDb a reliable source to establish notability for actors/film industry professionals, so not so sure about these. As part of a WP:BEFORE, per WP guidelines and RSP, a search for game industry reliable sources, but unfortunately did not get any results. It's clear that you did this work, but what I can't find is significant coverage of your role in these works as analyzed by independent industry experts to fulfill GNG. I know it's disappointing, and I'm sorry for that, but what is needed are more than mentions. Agree with @Elspea756 above. Netherzone (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Netherzone
    Here is a book interview done where I am one of six Coleco game development team members interviewed.
    Coleco: The Official Book (ISBN-10: 2924581060 ISBN-13: 978-2924581063) Michael Price interview pages 185-196. The interview covers my time at TSR, my work at Coleco, and my work after Coleco. 2600:8800:122:4A00:6DEE:364F:687F:E669 (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Netherzone
    Sorry, I was not logged in previously. My apologies for the previous post just above.
    Here is a book interview done where I am one of six Coleco game development team members interviewed.
    Coleco: The Official Book (ISBN-10: 2924581060 ISBN-13: 978-2924581063) Michael Price interview pages 185-196. The interview covers my time at TSR, my work at Coleco, and my work after Coleco.
    ConradJens (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm not sure whether to close this as No consensus or relist but reading this discussion over (again), it feels like we are still in the middle of a discussion, not the end. Can we have any more opinions on the source offered? It would be great if this could be in a Deletion sort for Video Games.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*'Comment Thank you for the suggestion Liz. I will add it to Games. The subject does not meet notability for artist. Indeed, the subject of the article would prefer it be focused on game design career. If the article isn't edited into notable under those criteria, I would vote for . --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Sorry--- I cant find a category specifically on video games, and I have already voted for delete.[reply]

  • Found video games. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've looked at the review of "They've Invaded Pleasantville" that ConradJens and Jaireeodell have asked us to look at. It is on page 35 of this 48 page pdf, numbered as page 31 in the upper right of the page. It is 5 paragraphs that say nothing about Michael Price other than that they are the designer of this game. This does not provide significant coverage of Michael Price (see WP:SIGCOV). Jaireodell asks if this would satisfy WP:CREATIVE #3 which says says "significant or well-known work ... must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." No, this does not show that They've Invaded Pleasantville is a significant and well-known work, and this is a single review, not multiple independent reviews. My advice remains: WP:TNT and put in the effort to start over in user space. If there is a decent article that could be made on this topic, I'd be happy to see it, but if one is possible it is currently buried under so much unsourced self-promotion like "Leveraging the experience gained with 3D immersive entertainment" etc that I am not seeing it. Elspea756 (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. It appears we have been talking past each other and that may be because of my lack of understanding what you all are looking for. I had been attempting to provide sources to back up the statements that had indicated the previous sources were not acceptable and I have done that, but apparently the real issue is the significant coverage, so here goes:
    Game Industry
    (1) https://www.newspapers.com/image/110332711/ and https://www.newspapers.com/image/110332797/ This is a significant article from the Louisville Courier-Journal business section dated March 22, 1998 regarding Indigo Moon Productions and Fierce Harmony, interviewing Michael Price.
    (2) Coleco: The Official Book (ISBN-10: 2924581060 ISBN-13: 978-2924581063) Michael Price interview pages 185-196. The interview covers my time at TSR, my work at Coleco, and my work after Coleco.
    Art Industry
    (3) Math & art: The enigmatic creations of Michael Pierre Price | Cover Story | azdailysun.com (archive.org) Arizona Daily Sun which has been indicated above is a reliable source. The archived link provided here actually is the entire interview.
    (4) 'Call Me Ishmael' art exhibit experiments with augmented reality (downtowndevil.com) September 6, 2021 Interview of Michael Pierre Price about his solo art exhibition Call Me Ishmael. The Downtown Devil is run through Arizona State University.
    I hope this helps address the concerns expressed with regards to significant coverage. ConradJens (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete with 2 or 3 good sources, he is not quite there. Article also lacks proper sourcing, so if it is kept, it needs to be trimmed down.Bikerose (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In general, 2 or 3 good sources meets the GNG which just requires "multiple" Hobit (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems notable in two fields and per ConradJens' and others comments and sourcing research. Meets GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

source analysis[edit]


Source assessment table: prepared by User:WomenArtistUpdates
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.phoenixmag.com/2016/12/01/artist-of-the-month-michael-pierre-price/ Yes ? No Local coverage of No Strangers – Annual Members’ Exhibition at Art Intersection in Gilbert, from December 13-January 7. ✘ No
https://www.playform.io/editorial/callmeishmael No No "Playform" is an AI product. This is the product website No Interview ✘ No
https://azdailysun.com/flaglive/cover_story/math-art-the-enigmatic-creations-of-michael-pierre-price/article_68547405-3390-5da4-8e86-cca1d83de1c2.html Yes Yes This is an local arts listing and interview No non-sig coverage ✘ No
https://www.nwitimes.com/uncategorized/d-day-50th-anniversary-in-a-farmhouse-in-france-they/article_12f6cb0f-77e4-5f7a-8dec-d8d2f4230807.html ? ? an article about D Day? ? behind paywall. can't access ? Unknown
https://aaqeastend.com/contents/aaq-portfolio-southampton-arts-center-exhibit-art-techspressionism-digital-beyond/ ? ? AAQ Portfolio Essay Southampton Arts Center no text. Promotion of 2022 show No non-sig coverage ✘ No
https://www.playform.io/editorial/michael/ No No "Playform" is an AI product. This is the product website No ✘ No
https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/ajp/article-abstract/47/6/531/1051174/Nonrelativistic-contribution-to-Mercury-s?redirectedFrom=fulltext Yes Yes 1979 academic paper "Nonrelativistic contribution to Mercury’s perihelion precession" written by the subject of the article - primary source No n ✘ No
https://artintersection.com/event/maps-enigmatic-landscape/ No No Art Intersection is a local gallery No promotional listing for MAPS: Enigmatic Landscape is a solo exhibition of digital prints by Michael Pierre Price shown in the Jewel Gallery at the Coconino Center for the Arts in Flagstaff, AZ. ✘ No
https://thewrong.org/Cyberiana No No Virtual exhibtion - no idea if it is juried No passing mention ✘ No
https://www.mesacc.edu/arts/event/2023-02/future-printmaking-survey-graphic-arts Yes No local coverage No event listing for "The Future of Printmaking: A Survey of the Graphic Arts" at Mesa Community College ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

The remainder of the citations are to pages at https://techspressionism.com/ a non-independant soucre and one more - https://www.lafleurartworks.com/event-22-secondary-page-1-2023 an event listing. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a biography, this isn't subject to WP:NCORP, so there is no audience requirement. Therefore, I'd consider the first and third sources in this table to be GNG sources. ~ A412 talk! 05:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT, article is a mess, almost the entirety of the prose fails NPOV and is cited to primary sources. That being said, per my reply above to the source assessment table, I think he's mildly notable. ~ A412 talk! 05:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source analysis is vague at best. Why is Phoenixmag not reliable? How are 4 paragraphs of coverage purely on the topic not "in depth"? [10] is also quite in-depth, I've no idea why it's marked otherwise. The analysis ignores [11] which appears to be reliable, in-depth and independent. I just don't see how the GNG bar isn't met. Hobit (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of the Phoenixmag piece is that it is a promotional for the show. The Phoenix Flag piece is a friendly interview. The downtown Devil piece is another puff piece. None of the three article represent significant analysis of the work, just the artist's ideas about his work. None of the articles present a NPV or contribute to notability.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for creating the source table, @WomenArtistUpdates. This paper:[12] is a a journal article written by the subject of the article. It does not contribute to notability, so that should be changed in the source table.
As to the Phoenix Mag piece, it's a "Preview" for the show which is like a press release. It's promo for his upcoming show. It's not a serious analysis of his work. Netherzone (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The source analysis table is too opinionated (and dismissive of other opinions expressed above) to be taken seriously this late in the discussion. I stand by my original 'Keep' assessment, and want to thank the article's subject for participating here transparently. Jclemens (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Anyone can make a source analysis table or rewrite an article to bring it up to notable. I feel the WP:BURDEN at this point is with those who think this individual should have an article. Best. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you, WomenArtistUpdates, for putting in the work to create the source assessment table. I disagree with Jclemens. As long as this discussion is open, it is not too "late in the discussion" for editors to participate, and I'll say a collaborative project works best when we consider all collaborators are "to be taken seriously." Elspea756 (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Elspea756! I would like to add that I am not late to the discussion. I !voted delete on March 11th. I decided to create a source assessment table after this had been relisted again. I don't find the arguments FOR the article to be persuasive. No changes have been made to the article. The article isn't focused on his game development, however it is being asked that the article should exist because WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Seems like there's not any support for his art work. The subject himself agrees. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT, without prejudice to a recreation as a stub based on reliable sources by a non-COI editor. In terms of notability the subject is borderline, but the article is essentially a non-neutral autobiography ("In 2010 he made the bold decision to leave the gaming industry behind and pursue his new calling as a Techspressionist artist"), and needs deletion and recreation from the ground up. Sandstein 10:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out needed edits is not a reason to delete an article (have edited the sentence that concerned you and other encyclopedic language). Many editors above have reasons to Keep, so this easily fits my essay WP:SHADOWOFKEEP: "If a large percentage of experienced commenting editors find value within an article, category, or the encyclopedia's other forms of transmitting information, then Wikipedia's readers should continue to benefit from that same value". Randy Kryn (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And this is even part of the WP:TNT essay: "When you see this as an argument to delete, don't give up. If you can repair the article in a timely manner, then you've neatly refuted that the article is irreparable. If you can't repair it in a timely manner, then this is the simplest argument to refute at WP:DRV; after all, they said it couldn't be fixed and you fixed it." BOZ (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the analyses by WAU and others. Not seeing a GNG pass here that doesn't require weakening our tolerance of non-independent material. JoelleJay (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the COI, above (although stilted) analysis of the sources, the style of writing makes me prefer a WP:TNT but even after that, I do not see any clear reason for this individual to meet even WP:GNG and being included here. FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep. Those who argued for a Merge made a good argument but there are disputes about which generation article this article might be appropriately Merged to which raises enough uncertainty that I'm closing this as Keep since editors seem to believe that the sources for this article are more than adequate. Liz Read! Talk! 08:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gyat[edit]

Gyat (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:NOPAGE in my view, and should be redirected to the entry at List of Generation Z slang. Seemingly all reliable sources documenting this word do so in the context of providing brief explanations of what the word is (presumably for an audience of confused parents of Gen Alpha children), and lack substantial cultural or etymological analysis, making expansion prospects for the article dim. Mach61 04:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Internet. Mach61 04:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons stated above, and also arguably as per WP:NOTDICT ArkHyena (talk) 04:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTDICT doesn't really apply here, since the article does considerably more than just define the term, as do reliable sources on the topic. Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My first instinct is to agree with everything written above (and to add that as Wikitionary already has an entry for this term, a redirect to List of Generation Z slang really won't result in any loss of useful information), however, I would like to better understand where we draw the line: What, for instance, is the merit of an article like Rizz as compared to Gyat? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you @Cl3phact0 the line is fuzzy so I have dropped a note at WikiProject Linguistics. I am leaning keep in part because the Today article includes a few experts who did provide background into its origins and evolution. S0091 (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably not top-shelf RS, but we have The Sun, the New York Post, et. al. writing about this word (well beyond matter-of-fact "definition, usage, etc."). It might actually be worth slow-walking this, ehem, gyat thing to see how much more SIGCOV it amasses. (If, eventually, it's kept, the article needs to include [more] information on the social or historical significance of the term, per WP:WORDISSUBJECT.) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cl3phact0 Well, that's why I linked WP:NOPAGE instead of WP:NOTDICT. I agree that there should be a home for this information to exist on WP, I just think that home is List of Generation Z slang. Mach61 19:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I suppose a redirect (and merge of anything worth keeping on hand) would do the trick then. It can always be reversed easily enough in future – say, when "Gyat(t)" is named "word of the year" by some august and hoary institution. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully Gyat is never named "word of the year." TLAtlak 03:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I share your sentiment. That said, I am starting to lean more towards "keep". The arguments being made here for the article's retention are solid. It does appear to meet both WP:WORDISSUBJECT and WP:SIGCOV. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like it got too close for comfort. TLAtlak 01:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: That List of Generation Z slang is fascinating, if not a tad disorienting. Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess because rizz was Oxford's word of the year? ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 07:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it seemed like a good illustration of an article that would easily be over the line. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I'm the author, I get that WP:NOTDICT is a thing, but Gyat has substantial cultural influence. Apart. from a ton of coverage in tabloids / WP:MREL sources, this article in Today] is likely one of the strongest in supporting substantial cultural or etymological analysis. As S0091 mentioned on my talk page. Probably more needs to be added to the article itself, but the aforementioned substance of Gyat clearly can't be summarized at Wiktionary. WP:WORDISSUBJECT. TLAtlak 01:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was originally leaning the other way, but after examining the sources, it does seem like this word clearly meets and exceeds WP:SIGCOV, and the article as written is more than just a WP:DICTDEF, as others have pointed out. Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it should be added to the List of Gen Z slang. HiSisters98 (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there isn't a consensus here and a broader discussion on when terms should have stand-alone articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: meets WP:GNG. The Today, HITC and Dexerto articles are about Gyat specifically (the latter is not used in this article but in List of Generation Z slang, though the word is attributed to Gen Alpha). Other articles such as NYT and RollingStone also support it's social and cultural significance. S0091 (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: passes WP:GNG and the term is everywhere right now… I see no reason for the deletion. V.B.Speranza (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Again, I'm not challenging the notability of the word, I simply think the information currently in the article could be summarized in List of Generation Z slang Mach61 00:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At its current state, Gyat might be able to be summarized there, but I suspect that if the social and culture significance added the story would change. List of Generation Z slang doesn't seem right, as Gyat is used a bit more predominantly by Generation Alpha, both according to the sources and according to Generation Z (me as well). Once List of Generation Alpha slang (likely in the near future) is published, what would we do? TLAtlak 08:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have time and the inclination to do so, why not just add additional information re: the "social and culture significance" of the word? Put it irrefutably over the WP:WORDISSUBJECT line. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cl3phact0 thanks for the idea. I've done that with some major expansion. TLAtlak 14:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is a good idea. :) Seriously, good job. S0091 (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! TLAtlak 01:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mach61, would these changes change your opinion? sorry for ping TLAtlak 11:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article now surpasses most of the criteria discussed above and is supported by sufficient sources. In my view, it is also interesting information and a useful addition. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: due to SIGCOV with plenty of reliable sources. Grahaml35 (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge it in List of Generation Z slang, with a few of the best sources. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Generation Z slang (which isn’t technically accurate as it’s African-American Vernacular slang but it’s better here to merge into the aforementioned article). For one, the word is not notable on its own to have a Wikipedia article and two, the description in the article isn’t an accurate account of the word. A blurb in Generation Z slang serves it best. Trillfendi (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The origins of the word are disputed. GP22248 (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like it also probably isn't technically accurate as it's used by Generation Alpha more. TLAtlak 13:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I second this. I see it's more widely used by Generation Alpha. Pancho507 (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s used by both about equally, however, since the origins of the words are disputed, it wouldn’t be accurate to put it in either. GP22248 (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still divided between Keep and Merge camps. This is just an impression but I think there are some editors who are focusing on the meaning of the word and not on whether there is adequate sourcing to establish notability which should be the primary determinant of whether or not there is a standalone article, not on the nature of the term. At this point, it's either a No consensus closure or one more relist and I'm going with the latter.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – I would note to all those voting merge to List of Generation Z slang that doing so would be factually somewhat incorrect, as the term is more predominantly used by Generation Alpha, based on sourcing online and if you have ever spent time on TikTok: NYT, BI, Daily Caller, et al. TLAtlak 14:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Opinion has changed over the course of a week. Liz Read! Talk! 07:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DarkwebSTREAMER[edit]

DarkwebSTREAMER (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:TOOSOON for an unpublished, previewed-but-not-otherwise-announced, video game. Two of the four sources are the same author, and the other two are heavily interview quotes.

My preferred result here is draftify, which I'd do unilaterally except that the article is older than 90d per WP:DRAFTIFY. ~ A412 talk! 05:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Australia. ~ A412 talk! 05:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - Probably should have done it myself in January. Instead I paced a source analysis on the article talk (does not meet GNG) and replaced the notability banner that the creator removed. No new sources forthcoming and I think it is WP:TOOSOON. Per that essay, draftify would be a suitable WP:ATD. Failing agreement to draftify, this would be a delete. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The page creator has now added these addtional sources to the page. [1][2][3] Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite adding 3 sources, there's still nothing in the article on the page, of course. Deletion is not for cleanup, but this is a page that really isn't ready to be out of draft. Looking at the three added sources, nothing in the PCGamer or RPG site articles really demonstrates notability. A mention in the New York Times is more significant. It is mentioned in the context of an article about a number of games that are mourning the Internet's olden times. As such, it is just an example, and again, I remain unconvinced of notability here. But I think it definitely suggest potential. I still think this is WP:TOOSOON but think it is good evidence that notability may be attained, and that working on the article in draft would not be time wasted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think [13] [14] [15] are WP:THREE reliable, independent sources that give significant coverage to the subject. Skyshiftertalk 19:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first of those is from Kotaku. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources articles published in Kotaku from 2023 onward should generally be avoided. So that is not a WP:RS. The other two I discuss above, but PC Gamer is writing about what is in an in-development game. Nothing in that speaks of notability. The New York Times talks about a trend in games and thus mentions this one in that context, which shows notability for something but not really this game. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The VG projct isn't completely prohibiting new Kotaku articles. Articles post-2023 can be used depending on context. I don't see any suggestion of content farming or AI in that article, for example. Skyshiftertalk 10:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, in context then: This page is about a game that has not even been released yet. We are very certainly in WP:TOOSOON territory to establish the reception of a game that no one can even play. And if no one can play this game yet, how did the Kotaku writer gain access? That doesn't look like an independent review either. This page is essentially promotional and is based on promotional content. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles about to-be-released games exist all the time. Of course we can't write a reception section yet, but this isn't a requirement. Skyshiftertalk 12:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom comment: I think this now crosses the bar to keep; newly added sources are good, and I think in particular the New York Times source demonstrates impact beyond "here's a preview for a game". ~ A412 talk! 15:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Video Games Are Mourning the Old, Weird, Clunky Internet - The New York Times". web.archive.org. 2024-02-06. Retrieved 2024-03-17.
  2. ^ Chamberlain, Paige. "Darkweb Streamer Preview - Can you earn new viewers and keep your sanity? | RPG Site". www.rpgsite.net. Retrieved 2024-03-17.
  3. ^ published, Jody Macgregor (2023-11-30). "Horror game darkwebSTREAMER contains an infinite procedurally generated internet and that sure sounds horrifying to me". PC Gamer. Retrieved 2024-03-17.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Maybe there is some argument for TOOSOON. However, once it's created (with sources meeting GNG), in the absence of a guideline that says a notable videogame in development but not released is unsuitable for inclusion, it's "TOOLATE" to delete, in my view — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 08:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Ignatius High School Gumla[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. No reliable sources found despite Google search including news, books, and news archive. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Rava[edit]

Abdullah Rava (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 suspecting sockpuppetry here and here on an AfD created by @User4edits, I tried to check why it doesn't exist on fawiki, apparently it was already deleted there several times because of no notability. Then stumbled upon this article via some relevant sock accounts. It looks like this was also deleted a lot of times on fawiki as non-notable and even salted indefinitely [16], so nominating it here as well. Tehonk (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable English translations of references, establishing notability, can be provided. While foreign language references are fine per WP:RSUEC, there's no mention of "Abdullah Rava" or "Abdullah Rawa" in any English language searches. If you haven't already, I'd file at SPI if you suspect sockpuppetry. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 05:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nana Aboagye Dacosta[edit]

Nana Aboagye Dacosta (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)

Delete: non-notable musician. Nirva20 (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article doesn’t show any evidence of WP:SIGCOV.Contributor892z (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kudakwashe Munyede[edit]

Kudakwashe Munyede (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)

Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Zimbabwe. JTtheOG (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete in absence of suitable redirect There is This, but that would only be one source, so still a WP:GNG fail, and no suitable redirect, so weak delete for now. If anything else is found ping and I'll reconsider. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Needlepeen[edit]

Needlepeen (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)

While this band certainly exists, there seems to be no real sources that can establish notability per the GNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 00:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I added some sources -Danimations1 Danimations2 (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This does not appear to be the subject of substantial coverage by multiple reliable third party sources. This subject also fails WP:NMUSIC. JFHJr (㊟) 04:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe if a band like Red Abbott can have a wikipedia page when they have 2 monthly listeners on Spotify, the subject can. Danimations2 (talk) 05:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Bandit Heeler (talk) 08:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Still though, why is my article getting deleted immediately whenever Red Abbott has been up for almost 20 years. Danimations2 (talk) 02:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Danimations2 On the surface, it's because Red Abbott has gotten significant coverage in reliable sources, while Needlepeen hasn't. —C.Fred (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @C.Fred What is considered a reliable source? Also the wikipedia article literally only has 4, one of which is the bands own website, and the rest are dead links nowadays. Danimations2 (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Danimations2 This discussion is for the the Needlepeen article. If you don't understand WP:Reliable sources after reading it, ask for help at your user talk page, or leave a message at mine. —C.Fred (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @C.Fred I read it and it seems to agree with my points overall about Red Abbott, they mention deprecated sources should not be used, and neither should sources connected to the subject. Now I think either both should go down or both should stay, since this seems like a very similar case. Danimations2 (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Danimations2 With only one presumptive reliable source (there's a gateway error on the website), Needlepeen is on shaky ground with respect to notability. By contrast, the coverage of RA, as well as what the reliable sources document, establish notability there. —C.Fred (talk) 03:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Danimations2 As C.Fred said, this deletion discussion is about the Needlepeen article, not the Red Abbott article. If you believe Red Abbott should be deleted, you can nominate it. Bandit Heeler (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Youtube, Reddit, Bandcamp and social media is all I find for coverage. Zero coverage in Gnews, perhaps TOOSOON. Oaktree b (talk) 03:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see no sign that this passes WP:GNG. I've tried looking for the LA Times interview in the WebArchive but they don't have it (which is kinda weird since most LA Times articles are usually archived). The article suggests that the band is notable for being "one of the first internet bands" but the latter have been around for 25 years. Pichpich (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I questioned that too. Heck we had Weezer on the Windows 95 installation CD back in the day and that got distributed online. Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I also noticed that this is not even close to one of the first Internet bands; see that WP article to find that such acts have existed since the late 1990s while this one formed in 2023. So what does Needlepeen have other than their own false belief that they pioneered something? Nothing but their own social media and basic streaming directory services. They do not have the reliable media coverage that is required here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doomsdayer520 🤓 Danimations2 (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who communicates with only emojis may not be qualified for an in-depth discussion of Wikipedia policy. Just sayin' (with words too!) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doomsdayer520 You're right I'm probably not qualified for it since I don't use this website constantly. I just wanted to create a page for a band I enjoyed. Danimations2 (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Le epic Reddit chungus hates le emoji JM99 Official (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: nothing of notability in the article apart from a dubious, unsourced claim of being 'the first internet band'. If you removed the WP:PUFFERY there would be nothing left. InDimensional (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted under G3‎. (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 01:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The '90s Are Blue's Clues (Block)[edit]

The '90s Are Blue's Clues (Block) (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 think this is a hoax because nothing online and no sources. 🍪 CookieMonster 00:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/2024_March_24&oldid=1216643736"