Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 28 August 30 >

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 merge‎ to Sext. Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Diurnum

Diurnum (  | 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 will do better as a dictionary definition at Wiktionary than a permanent stub with no citations here. An online search reveals this topic does not have enough in-depth coverage to warrant a Wikipedia page. Bremps ... 23:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗ plicit 01:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Milun Tesovic

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. All but perhaps one reference fail WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 15:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep Some coverage [4], second is a trivial mention [5] Oaktree b ( talk) 15:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Significant coverage in a couple of sources and brief coverage in a few others. -- Griboski ( talk) 02:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗ plicit 01:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Sam Taylor (producer)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Weak keep as well as the AllMusic staff bio referenced in the article the HoustonPress piece archived here is significant coverage imv, Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 15:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Cyprus women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Antria Kirkini

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

Redirect to List of Cyprus women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least three caps for the Cyprus women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 23:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Truimali Ramírez

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

The subject has earned at least five caps for the Honduras women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 23:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete (or Redirect if applicable). Shan't contest this. Subject isn't notable. Danish Ranger ( talk) 00:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Marcela Santos

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

The subject has earned at least one cap for the Honduras women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 23:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Urbana, North Dakota

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

Another grain elevator by the tracks, and there is also a very old school building, but no town. And according to Origins of North Dakota Place Names, that was always the case: the station was built and got a post office, and a town was platted, but nothing ever came of it. So just another NN rail spot.c Mangoe ( talk) 21:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment. From that source referenced in nom, it sounds like a potential redirect/merge could happen, though I don't know what the right target is. There's value in covering the history of the railroads in the United States in a variety of different ways, and a list of verifiable defunct stops that had infrastructure is a nice idea, perhaps broken out by state or line. — siro χ o 22:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:V / WP:GEOLAND given the lack of any reliable sources to verify the subject's existence. There isn't any point in a merge, the article just says that the subject is an unincorporated community which we don't think is true. Hut 8.5 07:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Urbana, Mangoe if there is sufficient evidence these were once named places why not just redirect to the township or county (probably the county) without an Afd? fiveby( zero) 17:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I have opposed this sort of redirect because we end up with lists within these articles which aren't true (that is, list of "communities") or the redirects go to places that don't tell you about this place. Mangoe ( talk) 23:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
That makes sense, useless to redirect the reader if there is no county history section mentioning the place, and worse than useless to imply it's an existing community. fiveby( zero) 04:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019. Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Hobbs, New Mexico party shooting

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

Only WP:ROUTINE coverage of this crime; nothing particularly notable about this shooting. Elli ( talk | contribs) 21:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and New Mexico. Elli ( talk | contribs) 21:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • delete, depressingly. A routine crime of no lasting impact other than to the victims, their friends, and their families. Mangoe ( talk) 21:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Another mass shooting in America? That's a daily occurrence. The only notable thing is that the arrested man was framed by the detective, who is related to other, more likely suspects. Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply

List of lone wolf terrorist attacks

List of lone wolf terrorist attacks (  | 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)

Arbitrary and unsupported selection criteria. To quote Lone wolf attack: "The term lone actor or lone wolf is not a legal term or a social science concept. It is an ill-defined and academically contested construct, manufactured by the media and by radical political actors." Groupthink ( talk) 20:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Lists. Groupthink ( talk) 20:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Very tough call. A couple quick search demonstrate that this very clearly meets WP:NLIST as despite the lack of an academic consensus, various reliable media discusses the subject as a group extremely often, often giving multiple examples. But the inclusion criteria seems too subjective right now. We'll clearly need to remove all unreferenced entries. But, given the concerns the nomination brought up, I do not think a single reference for each would suffice -- we'd need to see a few reliable sources describing an attack as such before adding it. Given the complexity of the underlying issue and the risk of DUE weight issues in the list, I think it's in violation of NPOV to keep this list in it's current state, so I'll say weak delete. I'm not sure at this time what a sufficient cleanup would look like, but there's a hypothetical version of this list that could be kept. — siro χ o 00:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    The only hypothetical version I can think of would be, like you pointed out, "List of terrorist attacks the media calls 'lone wolf'", which would be granular to a silly degree. Groupthink ( talk) 02:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 01:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep While I have no disrespect to the Anti-Defamation League or any of it's contributors, the statement the nominator seems to be pulling from the lone wolf attack article seems to be from a weekly ADL opinion(?) piece from over 20 years ago, so I'm not sure that "Lone wolf" can be declared as this completely meaningless term simply from that (and in fact, it's use in the Lone Wolf Attack article seems to be conferring a bit more 'objectivity' to that quote that it should actually have). Other, somewhat more academic takes on the subject as found here seem to be well defined and certainly not "manufactured by the media or a radical political actor". Obviously there may be some discourse regarding what qualifies as "direct leadership" or "direct outside command", but I feel that that is rather weak grounds to delete an otherwise 'fine' list which serves a good and unique purpose. Essentially, I both do not find the concept to be "ill defined" enough to warrant deletion, and I also do not feel that deletion is warranted to an otherwise useful list simply because some users or editors may disagree with the placement / omission of a couple given cases. A MINOTAUR ( talk) 03:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Meaningless term? No. But is it an "unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources" term? Also no. However it is a term used to excuse and whitewash certain types of terrorism, such as Christian terrorism, that the western world is uncomfortable with. Groupthink ( talk) 03:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I... do not quite agree with you here. I appreciate what you are saying - and I agree that it is best to not excuse/"whitewash" any forms of terrorism, but I don't seem to understand how this list does either of those things. This list existing does not stop a list called "List of terrorist attacks motivated by Christian beliefs" from existing (something else might, I'm not sure, but this list won't, and in fact Category:Christian terrorism in the United States already seems to partially serve this function). So your reason for deletion seems to be one more of personal conviction and passion about the subject matter rather than the actual guidelines and merits of article preservation/deletion. A MINOTAUR ( talk) 03:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I have no personal conviction or passion about the subject matter per se. My concerns are about POV pushing and loaded language. "Lone wolf terrorist attack" is a concept which is so flawed as to be untenable. Terrorist attacks cannot and do not happen in a vacuum. Terrorism is explicitly tied to politics and/or ideology by definition. Even setting that aside, what could an objective, non-arbitrary, verifiable gatekeeping principle be for deciding what is or is not a "lone wolf" attack? Groupthink ( talk) 04:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    AfD is not really the place to engage in a philosophical debate, so I will only again point to the DOJ PDF which itself outlines (in my view) a perfectly fine, reasonable, and objective (enough) definition for the term "Lone wolf" in the context of "lone wolf terrorist attack". Is there some degree of subjectivity? Of course, the definition is in many way a guideline, just as we editors follow guidelines to determine what articles get kept. Simply because there is potential for disagreement in the term does not de-legitimize any use of it.
    At risk of crowding the discussion this will likely be my last reply, though again I feel that your personal opposition to the term (or even the idea of such a term) is perhaps biasing your position here. The Lone wolf attack article is itself rather flawed (and largely created by one user, apparently a criminology student), though as we are not here for that article discussion regarding it is somewhat lost here. I do appreciate the discussion. A MINOTAUR ( talk) 04:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I appreciate the discussion as well. We all have our biases: I hate big lists and I cannot lie. But I'll have to agree to disagree with you that my [[Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria|selection criteria]] concerns constitute a bias, or at least an unfair bias as I feel you're implying. Groupthink ( talk) 07:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Addendum:Attached are several other references which include definitions of and 'credible discussion' of "lone wolf" attacks, from sources such as the Hauge, the European Comission, and various academic sources. I do not think it's our place as Wikipedians to try to "overrule" these organizations by making our own conclusions regarding the validity of the term, or simply out of Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT - adjacent perspectives. It is a clearly used term by a vast number of governments, academic institutions, and NGOs across the world. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] A MINOTAUR ( talk) 16:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Groupthink; it's a meaningless term and widely used to whitewash ubiquitous-but-only-in-the-US mass shootings, Christian terrorism and the rise of 21st century fascism and white nationalism in the US. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 14:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The article needs a lede that clearly defines lone wolf. Such a definition is not difficult to find in recent literature, and the emphasis on disagreements over the term appear to be WP:UNDUE. Otherwise, the list is relevant and encyclopedic (or as encylopaedic as a List can be, but I gave up on that battle years back). The nomination does feel very much within WP:IDONTLIKEIT, especially with a red-flag, patently untrue assertion that the term was manufactured by the media and by radical political actors. The use of the term to describe a person who commits a crime or nefarious act alone, not as part of a group, community or other affinity, dates to Tillotson in 1909. It saw significant use in the sixties (in US and AUS especially if I recall correctly) to describe those who abandoned non-violent groups to take direct action, usually in the form of a terrorist attack. Cheers Last1in ( talk) 17:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    As stated above, "manufactured by the media and by radical political actors" is not my language, it's language from the Lone wolf attack article. Groupthink ( talk) 18:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the term and idea is commonly discussed in academic sources per google scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C24&q=Lone+wolf&btnG= Hardyplants ( talk) 07:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. Blurring and media coverage of the term in our case is acceptable: this list, albeit not strict, is of great value to various kinds of researchers. Suitskvarts ( talk) 09:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep There are multiple sources that discuss this topic. A BEFORE search also shows a lot of results. FlutterDash344 ( talk) 21:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per others, but mostly on WP:N which I believe this list covers. I think the nom's rationale is on-point about media hyping a word that usually describes a "social outcast" rather academic sources that describe terrorists who act alone. If anything, the page can be moved to something more appropriate, but there are enough sources where this list can exist. Conyo14 ( talk) 20:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete It seems to violate WP:NPOV in it's current state to me. It seems that there is some WP:DUE concerns with some of the entries. It seems fairly dicey to me whether this meets the criteria or not. But for the aforementioned reasons. I am going to say weak delete. Seawolf35 ( talk) 01:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Richard Moser

Richard Moser (  | 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 fictional character in Austrian television series Inspector Rex. I couldn't find significant independent coverage of him, so I believe he does not warrant his own article per the General notability guideline. HenryMP02 ( talk) 21:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Checking the main Inspector Rex article, it seems at a glance that all relevant info is already covered there, and I can't find much of anything else. Pokelego999 ( talk) 22:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. In light of sources added and brought up here. Liz Read! Talk! 03:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Faruk Kaymakcı

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

WP:BLP of a diplomat and civil servant, not properly referenced as passing notability criteria. As always, neither diplomats nor civil servants are "inherently" notable just because they exist -- for both roles, notability hinges on showing a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage about their work in media and/or books, to demonstrate that their work has made them the subject of significant third-party attention to establish its significance. But the referencing here is entirely to content self-published by his own employers and other directly affiliated organizations, with not a shred of GNG-worthy media coverage shown at all. Bearcat ( talk) 14:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Turkey. Bearcat ( talk) 14:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Appears to be a non-notable diplomat who fails to meet WP:BIO or WP:NPOL. Hey man im josh ( talk) 16:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - the subject was until recently Turkey's Deputy Foreign Minister and EU ambassador. There are hundreds of news articles referencing him to represent Turkey's official view on various geopolitical issues. Here is a biographical overview from the College of Europe. Should easily meet WP:NPOL in my opinion. - Indefensible ( talk) 17:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep For example https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/no-european-security-without-turkiye-deputy-eu-minister-179536 - as far as I know Hürriyet Daily News has not (yet?) been added to the list of unreliable sources. Chidgk1 ( talk) 13:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I have cited more sources to the subject albeit some are written in Turkish. And would as well ask admins to consider which diplomatic portfolios should be considered on the WP:NPOL. A deputy foreign minister should easily pass. My 2cents and kind regards. Wikipractitioner ( talk) 15:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    There's a complexity here because "foreign minister" is used differently across different countries. In parliamentary systems a "Minister" or "Deputy Minister" is a member of a national/state parliament (so automatically satisfying NPOL); in presidential systems the equivalent is an appointed position. In both cases, Ministers would normally be members of cabinet, membership of which would satisfy NPOL. However, there are some countries where not all ministries are cabinet level and certainly deputy ministers do not automatically hold cabinet-level positions. In the case of Turkey, the Foreign Minister is a Presidential appointment and there are at present four deputy foreign ministers. Three of the deputy foreign ministers are career foreign service professionals (ie civil servants) and one appears to be an AKP apparatchik. Given this, I would not consider a Turkish deputy foreign minister presumptively notable under NPOL. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 01:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - He is notable enough due to his role as ambassador of Turkey. Egeymi ( talk) 18:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Other than the scores of Turkish sources available, here's some European pieces: The Brussels Times, Balkan Insight, "Significantly, the new Turkish ambassador to Brussels is Faruk Kaymakci, probably the ablest EU specialist in the foreign ministry" Oxford Analytica Expert Briefings. Sources available that show a passing of the GNG/BASIC. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 23:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Big Bear Lake, California. Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Big Bear Grizzly

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, United States of America, and California. UtherSRG (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to Big Bear Lake, California. This paper dates back to 1941, and is clearly the newspaper of record for the city. IAR, I do not like deleting such articles, since we are likely to cite them in coverage of topics relating to the city. That said, I really struggled to find sources. There is a paragraph on the newspaper's name and basic details in this book on newspaper names, but that's not quite WP:SIGCOV. There is coverage of ownership change here, but it only mentions the newspaper once as part of a group, so that doesn't count either. This 1978 article (continued here) talks about someone being allegedly fired because of the newspaper's reporting, but there's nothing we'd use it for in the article per WP:NOTNEWS, so it seems like it'd be cheating a bit to try to use it for notability. There is almost surely significant coverage in Big Bear: Bearly Remembered, a 319-page history of the city, but I haven't been able to access it ( offline sources count, if they can be proved to exist). The best bet for saving this would be to get access to that book, and to hope it leads to a second source somewhere.
    Taking stock of all that, what we have is a topic that's notable in the generic, non-jargon sense, but where the sourcing doesn't quite add up to Wikipedia notability — yet, from what we can access online. The paper also clearly deserves coverage in the city's article (not mentioned there currently, but it's standard practice to cover news organizations in city articles; also keep in mind that, with a population of 5,000 people, the due bar is not high). These factors make it very ripe for merging as an ATD. {{u| Sdkb}}  talk 18:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I found three sources that provide information on this newspaper and added two of them to the article. See talk page. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 20:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Those look like unreliable database entries to me. {{u| Sdkb}}  talk 23:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Agree with Sdkb's asessment above. Totnes Times was another recent similar merge. Willing to change to keep if SIGCOV is found. — siro χ o 23:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Breast Cancer Network Australia

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Weak keep, the Age and Herald Sun articles combine to meet WP:SIRS. I fixed the broken link to the latter article which is still online but had gone stale. WilsonP NYC ( talk) 17:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Worth more consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - The "Tagged for notability since 2010" is only because nobody bothered to remove the tags, or had no idea they should have. This article has improved considerably since then. I have removed the 13-year-old tags. Wikipedia in general is like a site-wide litter path of such tagged articles that were improved, but nobody removed the old out-of-date tags. Looking through the online site, the links, information and research it offers makes it somewhat equal in outreach to the online American Cancer Society site. Pretty important links and information. — Maile ( talk) 00:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to St Hugh's College, Oxford. Liz Read! Talk! 21:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

St Hugh's Boat Club

AfDs for this article:
St Hugh's Boat Club (  | 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)

Listing since a G4 was declined due to the information added on Weiss (I assume). From a WP:BEFORE, not much has changed has changed since the last AfD. I'm not seeing any WP:SIGCOV on the club itself. The information of Weiss doesn't make the club itself notable. Schminnte ( talk • contribs) 16:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and England. Schminnte ( talk • contribs) 16:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to the St. Hugh College article. Not notable without the context of the school. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    It is suggested that this article should not be deleted for the following reasons:
    1. SHBC alumni include American Olympic rower Anders Weiss who has his own Wikipedia page.
    2. It is extremely common for Oxford college boat clubs to have their own Wikipedia page at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University_Rowing_Clubs
    3. It is suggested that all Oxford college boat clubs should be included to make Wikipedia more comprehensive.
    4. Members of SHBC compete in the world-famous Oxford vs Cambridge boat race with a television audience of ~6 million. See for example the 1982 race at /info/en/?search=The_Boat_Race_1982 where Boris Rankov represented St Hugh's with a record-breaking fifth race, later recognised by Guinness World Records. Oxonwiki ( talk) 11:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Point 1 doesn't mean we should have an article for the club, per WP:NOTINHERITED. Point 2 is just WP:OSE. Point 3 doesn't comply with the need for them to be notable, articles should only be created if notable. Point 4 is again WP:NOTINHERITED. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 11:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Please re-read the article on St Hugh's Boat Club. I have added more information regarding the Club's history and the awards it has won.
    Most notable change is the fact that St Hugh's Women First VIII were the first and only women's crew to successfully bump a men's crew (magdalen m4) during the 1975 Summer Eights. This event significantly contributed to the creation of Women divisions for all subsequent Summer Eights (1976 onwards) and Torpids (1978 onwards).
    Additionally, the St Hugh's Women's Eight also won the College Div B in the first ever Henley Women's Regatta in 1988, another notable achievement by the club. Whyartlife ( talk) 17:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I will note here that there is still no significant coverage of the club. The bulk of the references added are either for alumni ( WP:NOTINHERITED) or published by St Hugh's. As there is no WP:SNG for rowing this article has to meet WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (my emphasis). I'm still not seeing that. Schminnte ( talk • contribs) 17:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Before I address your points, may I disclose that I am not a paid editor and am not being paid to edit the St Hugh's article. I do however am connected to the Boat Club as I am a member of the club and have participated/represented the club in recent events. As a result, I am trying to show how our club has a rich and notable history, especially regarding women's rowing at Oxford.
    Regarding your point about significant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject - The Times has mentioned St Hugh's Boat Club multiple times during their coverage of the Eights Week, most notably during the years 1975, 1982-84. You can find reference to this at this website: http://eodg.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/dudhia/rowing/bumps/e1982/ which is an archive of all Summer Eights and Torpids Bump charts reconstructed by Anu Dudhia, who has stated that majority of the information for the years 1900-1995 came from " the bumps charts printed in The Times newspapers". This is referenced on the Bump Index website here: http://eodg.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/dudhia/rowing/bumps/.
    Additionally, the St Hugh's Boat Club also produced the Women's crew which won at the first Henley Women's regatta in 1988 in the College Eights Division B. This can be proven by looking at the HWR results archive website: https://hwr.org.uk/results-archive/
    I hope this is sufficient information proving why the Boatclub has notable history, seeing as there is proof showing that St Hugh's Boat Club women have been rowing even before women's rowing was introduced to the Olympics in 1976. This can be seen here: http://eodg.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/dudhia/rowing/bumps/e1975/ Whyartlife ( talk) 08:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Your first point is the The Times has mentioned the club. If you will read our guidelines on significant coverage, you'll find that a mere mention is not enough: we need coverage on the club, not mentions. As for your other points, unfortunately these mean nothing since Wikipedia does not have a special notability guideline for rowing so we must use the general guideline, and we are still lacking that crucial significant coverage that would pass that. Schminnte ( talk • contribs) 10:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    The Times has covered the club throughout multiple days as the Eights Week as proceeded. You can go on the site I cited previously and see for yourself. As per the notability guidelines, significant coverage doesn’t need the source covering the topic to be the main topic. The Times doesn’t target the club for its main coverage, that is true. The main coverage target is Eights Week/Torpids, but in doing so it does cover the Club and its performance during the events and how the club won Headship. Winning the Eights Week is a significant and notable achievement as Eights Week itself is a notable competition seeing as it has its own article on wikipedia. There is also coverage by the Daily Telegraph alongside the Times. Additionally, there is no original research being conducted to verify this, only a few google searches. As far as I can see, this should be meeting Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines. Whyartlife ( talk) 08:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Please note that The Times article from 1983 contained in the below website provides significant coverage for the club in a reputable newspaper:
    https://www.sutori.com/story/shbc-a-history--et3i3ZN8NKqrxq2irj2SLSi3?fbclid=IwAR2haOjUMrk4M7tpZ_B_N2ewC9XWESwex2GT6VvqzP1foLMpGw924x6ILx0 Oxonwiki ( talk) 01:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect not notable enough for an independent article, doesn't look like it would meet WP:GNG. Also, please protect the redirect to stop this being recreated again. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 11:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Additionally sources have been added to the article which hopefully should meet WP:GNG requirements. Whyartlife ( talk) 17:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Please note that The Times article from 1983 contained in the below website provides significant coverage for the club in a reputable newspaper:
    https://www.sutori.com/story/shbc-a-history--et3i3ZN8NKqrxq2irj2SLSi3?fbclid=IwAR2haOjUMrk4M7tpZ_B_N2ewC9XWESwex2GT6VvqzP1foLMpGw924x6ILx0 Oxonwiki ( talk) 01:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    How can you be sure that this was published in The Times? I doubt "St Hugh's DevSec" is an independent source. Schminnte ( talk • contribs) 07:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Extremely important article. Boat Clubs mean a lot in Oxford. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:152:4F80:CF80:79FB:D1BD:DED0:D0BD ( talk) 16:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply

That's not really how AFD, nor how Wikipedia works. Is your claim verifiable by Wikipedia:Reliable sources (see the lead section)? This deletion discussion is about whether the topic is notable in terms of Wikipedia or not. Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process might be able to help you. NotAGenious ( talk) 16:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep Disclosure, I am a current member of the St Hugh's Boat Club and have conducted research and added more relevant information regarding the club's history which should hopefully meet all requirements. Additionally, I am new to editing in Wikipedia so not fully up to speed regarding most of the short-forms and conduct, so please do bear with me. I do have a vested interest in keeping the article and have presented more data so a more informed decision can occur. Whyartlife ( talk) 17:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)— Whyartlife ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as a lot of editing has occurred on this article since nomination, please evaluate its current condition.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Merge: fails GNG, as most Oxford boat club articles probably do. There's no significant coverage from sources independent of St Hugh's. Those interested in the history might want to start their own wiki on Oxford sports and societies, but Wikipedia isn't that place. — Bilorv ( talk) 23:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - every other Oxford college boat club appears to have a page, including e.g. St Benet's Hall and Regent's Park. I don't see the point of deleting one and being inconsistent. Either have articles for them all, or have none and delete the lot.

(Just on another note - shouldn't it be moved to 'St Hugh's College Boat Club'?) FieldOfWheat ( talk) 15:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi @ FieldOfWheat, the existence of other articles is generally seen as a poor arguement for both deleting or keeping an article. If you have concerns about the notability of other articles, then that should be voiced in discussions concerning those articles. All the best, Schminnte ( talk • contribs) 16:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Seems you have an agenda. Every time someone puts an argument for keeping this page, up you pop to try and void it. I have no concerns whatsoever about the notability of other articles - if every other Oxford boat club (indeed every other Oxbridge boat club) is notable enough to deserve a page (as they all are), so does St Hugh's.
Leave it alone, and don't question me about keeping this page, or I might ask you why you're so keen to delete it.
FieldOfWheat ( talk) 19:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I can assure you that I have no agenda here: please don't cast aspersions. I'm merely trying to explain the policies on which we should base rationales in these discussions. You (and other editors in this discussion) are new to AfD so I thought explaining and responding to these points would be helpful and useful. Regardless, I will not be replying to any more of these points, even if I feel it will help. Thanks, Schminnte ( talk • contribs) 20:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between a Redirect/Merge to St Hugh's College, Oxford and Keeping the article. I asked in the first relist if there could be some evaluation on the work to improve this article since the nomination but it seems like most opinion has been about whether or not Wikipedia should have articles on this subject, with limited discussion on the current state of this article and its sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Source assessment table. Based on sources in the article, redirect/merge seems reasonable, but I haven't sought out more sources so I won't bold a !vote. — siro χ o 04:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
British Rowing [11] ? Yes No address, location etc ✘ No
Wood, Tessa [12] No school publication reporting on school subject ? Yes ✘ No
facebook ? No WP:UGC ? ✘ No
Sutori [13] ? No UGC Yes ✘ No
St. Hugh's College Chronicle (all of them) No school publication reporting on school ? ? ✘ No
thames.me.uk (both) ? ? No database entry for a few specific races ✘ No
eodg.atm.ox.ac.uk (both) ? ? No several database entries over time for specific races ✘ No
[14] Henley Women's Regatta ? Yes No database entries on races ✘ No
[15]Thames Ditton Regatta ? Yes No database entry ✘ No
Goodbody, John [16] Yes Yes No no mention of subject ✘ No
"Good luck to Anders Weiss!" No school publication ? ? ✘ No
The American [17] No entirely an interview with member ? No ✘ No
Sam Marsden [18] Yes Yes No no mention of subject ✘ No
"BBC investigated ..." [19] ? ? No passing mention ✘ No
Guiness [20] Yes Yes No no mention ✘ No
Rachel Quarrell [21] Yes Yes No no mention ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
  • Merge to college article pro tem - Oxford colleges have always given rise to lots of writing and I've no doubt that it would be possible with time to pull together enough independent sourcing to support a separate article. It would be a shame to lose this content in the meantime. Ingratis ( talk) 08:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. There is continuing opposition to merging this material, but a clear consensus that this is not an appropriate article subject. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology

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

There are no secondary sources that meaningfully discuss this website. This article has lacked sources for over a decade. The edit that reverted the proposed deletion contained an admission that the reverter was not aware of any relevant secondary sources. The fact that a source is cited does not make it notable. The only potential target for a redirect does not mention this article's subject, so a redirect is unwarrented. ― Susmuffin  Talk 17:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose: I agree that secondary sources about the actual encyclopedia are not easily found (I have not encountered any). But secondary sources citing articles within the encyclopedia are easily found (any search on Google Books demonstrates this). Besides, the notability criteria for this should for WP:NB (which is "instructive by analogy"), and is therefore deemed a reliable source as a widely cited academic work. — Caorongjin 💬 18:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: The proper answer to a lack of secondary sources isn't to come up with some other justification. It's that an article on this subject cannot be sustained, and I'm somewhat startled at hearing the article creator admit that there never were any valid secondary sources. A citation to an article within this encyclopedia is a WP:NOTINHERITED issue. Ravenswing 06:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    And as that section reads: "four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances". What I am suggesting is inherited notability as a book, that is highly cited, per WP:TEXTBOOK (as suggested below by @ A. B.. — Caorongjin 💬 16:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Question: might this book qualify under WP:TEXTBOOK?
— A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 13:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Couldn't find any mentions in RSes and doesn't meet any of the criteria at WP:NBOOK. It also doesn't appear to meet WP:TEXTBOOKS as it hasn't been published by a university press or gone through the associated peer review, I haven't seen any evidence that the website is widely cited in academia or the media, there are no sources to establish how influential it has been, and it has not been the subject of study in any educational institutions. Shapeyness ( talk) 13:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Modern Theology (journal), which is the primary source of writers for this work. Not notable, but quite possibly noteworthy. BD2412 T 04:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    It seems like that link was made in error, as I could not find any evidence of a relationship between the project and the journal. ― Susmuffin  Talk 03:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Wesley J. Wildman, rather Wesley Wildman. Oppose merge to Modern Theology (journal), which I don't think is actually connected, rather a set of seminars at Boston University of a similar name is connected to the journal. I've deleted the wikilink to Modern Theology (journal) from the article. -- Jahaza ( talk) 21:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
corrected as per Liz's note that Wesley J. Wildman is a redirect.-- Jahaza ( talk) 19:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus and two different Merge targets suggested (although Wesley J. Wildman isn't a viable one because it is a redirect)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see whether there is support for a Merge or Redirect to Wesley Wildman as there is opposition to a Merge to Modern Theology.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - per Ravenswing. A lack of secondary sources is and should always be a hard stop. - car chasm ( talk) 07:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Middleville, Michigan. Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Camp Manitou-Lin

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Canberra Choral Society

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NBAND, WP:NORG, and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Organizations, and Australia. UtherSRG (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Plenty of news coverage about this group, both local and national: Limelight [22] [23], Australian Broadcasting Corporation [24], Canberra Times [25]. There is also the book Canberra Choral Society: A Capital Choir for a Capital City ISBN  9780958155304, a commemorative history book published by a small non-fiction press, but it has been cited in a few scholarly articles. I can provide more sources if needed. Why? I Ask ( talk) 20:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Sources listed above (Limelight, Canberra Times) book appear to confirm WP:NBAND#C1. I couldn't get a glimpse of the listed book, so for my own certainty I found SIGCOV in a different book as well [26]. — siro χ o 05:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. WP:NAUTHOR is met and WP:PROF#C1 is arguably met even if WP:PROF#C5 is not. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC) ( non-admin closure) ‎ reply

Michael Fitzgerald (psychiatrist)

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

Appears to fail WP:PROF. The closest I can come is his being the "Henry Marsh Professor of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at Trinity College, Dublin" (1996-2010), except no one can find any reference to this "chair" being created, or to anyone who held it before Fitzgerald (which seems improbable anyway, since Henry Marsh (neurosurgeon) himself was only 46 in 1996), or since. See Talk:Michael_Fitzgerald_(psychiatrist)#Notable?. Pinging everyone who particiapted there: User:Tryptofish, User:ElKevbo, User:Tacyarg. E Eng 21:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. E Eng 21:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The Marsh Professorship is at least verifiable through official TCD documents and not just Fitzgerald's own cv: the TCD Calendar 2007–2008 lists him as "Henry Marsh Professor of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1996)", where I think the year is the founding of the chair. Maybe it was named for Sir Henry Marsh, 1st Baronet? — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Sorry, I should have been clearer. I'm not questioning whether he held the position, but I am questioning whether the position truly qualifies as a "named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment". I mean, obviously it has a name, but the fact that it seems to have been a one-off (i.e. it seems to have been vacant since Fitzgerald gave it up) makes me wonder what's really going on. Interesting that you've found another candidate Henry Marsh (and this one Irish -- mine was English, and we're talking about Trinity Dublin) but the fact that neither you nor I nor anyone else seems to be able to figure out the origin of this "chair" is a further bad sign. E Eng 23:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. It seems to me that a strict reading of WP:PROF kind of "forces" a keep on the basis of that named chair, but I'm not a big fan of technical reasons for notability when they seem at odds with common sense. (I don't think the history of the chair matters for our purposes, since being the inaugural Professor in that position is, arguably, a reason to find notability.) I'm having trouble seeing any other reasons to keep. I'm going to wait another day or so, before making up my mind about this AfD, but I feel it is useful for me to register these thoughts now. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Psychiatry and Ireland. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. I see this as a borderline case. On the plus side, we have clear sourcing that he has held a named chair professorship; it does not matter that there is little or no information on the creation of the chair, or that he was the first person to hold it, or that the chair has not been filled after he retired from it. But on the minus side, I looked at his publications at Google Scholar, and in particular I looked at the numbers of times his publications were cited by others. He has a couple of publications that got cited a few hundred times, but most of them have citations in the tens. Comparing that with other prominent academic psychiatrists, who have corresponding numbers in the hundreds to thousands, leads me to conclude that his work has had a modest impact in his field. That makes me come down, weakly, on the side of him not really passing WP:PROF. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Well again, my point is that the lack of any trace of reference of any kind, anywhere, to this "chair", other than that Fitzgerald seems to have held the position for a period, makes me wonder whether it's indeed a distinguished professorship instead of a hopeful label that never got off the ground. Anyway, I do think "weak delete" is the right way of putting it. E Eng 19:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC) P.S. Here [27] we learn that Fitzgerald was the first occupant, which to be honest makes it even weirder that there's no trace of any annoucement of where this chair comes from. reply
    Actually, the Trinity College calendars linked to by David also show the year the chair was established as being the same year that Fitzgerald was named to it. But your link in the PS part of your comment refers only to him claiming to be the first person in Ireland to be tenured as a Professor of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, but that's not as the named chair. I think your insistence on it being a "hopeful label" is just a distraction from this AfD discussion, because there's nothing remarkable about a university position not being filled after someone steps down from it. That might just mean that the faculty search was unsuccessful, something that happens fairly often in academia. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Changed to keep. Other editors, below, have clearly demonstrated that I screwed up in my citation search. Woops. Therefore, his impact in his field is clearly demonstrated, and that makes for an unambiguous "keep". -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • strong keep. I dont think the chair is reason enough to keep the article but a professor with 42 papers with 100+ citations and an h-index of 58 clearly passes the bar for WP:NPROF#1 - applying a much higher standard here than in other AfD discussions does not seem to make sense to me. -- hroest 21:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm confused. I only saw a few papers with that many citations. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Here are the Scopus metrics for 200+ of Fitzgerald's coauthors with 20+ papers (absent the ones from one consensus statement with a million authors):
    Total citations: average: 17819, median: 8627, Fitzgerald: 6717.
    Total papers: 242, 162, 198.
    h-index: 57, 45, 40.
    Top 5 citations: 1st: 1495, 834, 636. 2nd: 906, 498, 447. 3rd: 704, 388, 339. 4th: 580, 324, 298. 5th: 493, 295, 294.
    This is an extremely high-citation field. JoelleJay ( talk) 02:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as a pass of WP:Author. I found nine academic reviews of Autism and Creativity: Is There a Link Between Autism in Men and Exceptional Ability? including the British Medical Journal and the Lancet. [1] (One a joint review with the next book.) I found four reviews of The Genesis of Artistic Creativity: Asperger's Syndrome and the Arts (one a joint review with the previous book). [2] I found one review each of Young, Violent & Dangerous to Know and Unstoppable Brilliance: Irish Geniuses and Asperger's Syndrome (cites included in the article, but not here.) -- Jahaza ( talk) 02:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    I found a second review of Unstoppable Brilliance although I haven't been able to access it. [28] Jahaza ( talk) 03:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Reviewed in:
  2. ^ Reviewed in:
  • Keep. We now have a clear case for WP:AUTHOR and a plausible case for WP:PROF#C1, so we no longer need to clarify the case for #C5. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    OK, let's 86 this AfD PDQ. E Eng 19:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify‎. as an ATD Liz Read! Talk! 21:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Estonia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2023

Estonia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2023 (  | 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 event being hosted in November. There is no evidence this appearance in this event will be notable until the event is over or closer. — Karnataka talk 21:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Mo Yaqub

Mo Yaqub (  | 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 former footballer who played a few minutes of professional football and which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Aside from the primary sources and routine coverage included in the article now, there is nothing more than routine transasctional coverage available online (e.g., [29]). There is simply no significant coverage available. Jogurney ( talk) 20:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. I've never seen the deletion rationale that an article should be deleted because it's a "short list." Liz Read! Talk! 19:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

List of cancelled Nintendo Switch games

List of cancelled Nintendo Switch games (  | 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:NOTCATALOG, short list with hardly any sources. Summerslam2022 ( talk) 19:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Summerslam2022 ( talk) 19:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - every entry is sourced, so I'm not entirely sure what the complaint is there. There's also long-standing precedent for "list of cancelled (platform) games" list articles to exist so I find the entire nomination puzzling. It's also a valid WP:SIZESPLIT because of the massive size of the List of Nintendo Switch games articles, which keeps getting split because it keeps hitting literal size maxes for articles. Im also confused conceptually how a list of games that will never be commercially released be a catalogue violation? Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It is well-sourced, it meets LISTN, and the NOTCATALOG part of the nomination makes no sense. QuicoleJR ( talk) 19:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh ( talk) 20:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete These are games released on other systems that they wanted to release on the Switch, but had problems and decided not to. You can't list every single game that was released on one system but not ported to all systems, that would be long and pointless. Dream Focus 20:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    This is a misrepresentation of what this article is. It's not "every single game that was released on one system but not ported to all systems". It's got established and specific inclusion criteria. It only lists games that have a reliable source that verifies a game was announced for the Switch, but was later cancelled. Sergecross73 msg me 20:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    The references I clicked on are just quoting press releases and making brief mentions that it won't be ported to the Switch as planned. Is there a single item on the list with significant coverage? Dream Focus 00:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    WP:VG/S-approved sources commonly write dedicated articles about game cancellations. Like Polygon on Midnight Suns or IGN on Final Fantasy 15 or Gamespot on Hypersports. Sergecross73 msg me 00:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Those are not significant coverage, just quoting game designers or game companies announcing they aren't porting them. Some articles contain mentions of other things in them, but the content about a game being cancelled for porting to the Switch is not significant. Dream Focus 02:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    They're literally articles dedicated to the subject, with the Switch cancellation making the headline each time. That's not a passing mention, that's significant coverage. What is going on here? We've interacted at AFD for decades at this point now. You never hold articles to such a insanely high sourcing standard, nor would you tolerate someone trying to pull this on you, so I'm completely confused as to why you've decided to move the goalpost for this particular list. Sergecross73 msg me 02:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I just can't imagine anyone wanting to read this article. It seems pointless. If you want to add a sentence or two to the game articles as to why they weren't ported to the Switch, that might make sense. Does it matter if any games were announced then canceled, or just not planned to begin with? Should we have a list of games that were ported to every other modern port other than Nintendo Switch because of its limitations or other reasons? Not all companies release a press statement for something like this since its pointless. Web only news sources have to fill content so sometimes a few sentence announcement and make it into a very short article, doesn't really count as significant coverage. Dream Focus 20:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    None of that is a valid deletion rationale. That's one giant WP:IDONTLIKEIT violation. We don't delete things just because someone personally doesn't find it of interest. I was recently bored out of my mind reading the stag beetle article. That doesn't give me a valid AFD nomination. Sergecross73 msg me 20:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to List of Nintendo Switch games Don't really see a reason this has to be standalone. Surely cancelled games can also be featured under the overall game list, but marked as cancelled rather than having a release date. Having a list solely for cancelled games feels like an airing of grievances from angered Switch owners. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 20:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    The list of Switch games has already been WP:SIZESPLIT five times over, and is already headed for more. I also wrote all the "notes", and it was not from a place of grievance, but from a place of fascination in the video game development process. There's no negatively there (if it comes off that way, please, anyone tweak it, that was not the intent.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Well, there are lists on Wikipedia that are literally just single letters such as Index of Windows games so I still don't see the problem. If it merits it, the list of Switch games can be split along the same lines.
    I don't really see where the game development angle comes in though, because most of them have barely any insight into any special reason for cancellation besides "it was too hard" or "it wasn't profitable". 100% cancelled games often have interesting insight into "what could have been" but these are just ports of otherwise released games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 22:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    You "don't see a problem" with SIZESPLITing 26 unsourced Windows games lists but do have a problem with splitting out one game list that entails sourced commentary for every entry? I'm struggling to follow your philosophy on lists here... Sergecross73 msg me 22:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm entirely befuddled by the notion that it's a problem that this list of cancelled games is limited to only games cancelled for budget issues and games cancelled for technical issues. Should there be games cancelled for political issues? Games cancelled for fun? The only third thing I could think of would be games moved from Switch to the next platform, but obviously, that's not something that could exist at the moment. Unless you're taking issue with the existence of all list of cancelled video games, I don't see what the issue is. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk) 22:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I was puzzled by that too. "Difficulties in programming" and "difficulties in budget" are some of the most relevant and important aspects in the gaming making industry. And it's a list, so it's not like it's the place to write up a full multi-paragraph detailed account of things. Sergecross73 msg me 22:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep All games are sourced, and it meets LISTN. I see no reason to delete this list. FlutterDash344 ( talk) 21:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It does not have "few" sources, it has as many sources as is necessary for the size of the list. Merging is also not viable, as the list of Nintendo Switch games is already large as it is. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk) 22:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Every entry sourced, NOTCATALOG doesn't apply here. -- Mika1h ( talk) 17:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Speedy keep; Not seeing why this was nominated? The article is sourced and the article servers a purpose. How does NOTCATALOG apply here? Negative MP1 18:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Subject has good enough sourcing and passes WP:LISTN as a result. User:Let'srun 21:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as others have explained. It's well-sourced – I have no idea what the nominator meant by "hardly any sources" – and the only other arguments for deletion presented thus far seem to amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - Revolutionary girl euclid ( talk) 19:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Confusion Bowl

Confusion Bowl (  | 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 college football "rivalry" game. Has only been played three times, with a fourth this coming week. O.N.R.  (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I've heard this referred to as the Confusion Bowl in years past. I follow college football fairly regularly and thought this was reasonably well known. Auggiewestbound ( talk) 20:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG. There is already significant coverage in the article dating dating back to the 1940s. Alvaldi ( talk) 21:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete per nom. Coverage listed in the article is WP:ROUTINE game summaries or pregame reports, or simple commentary on how the two schools have similar names. This fails GNG in terms of establishing a rivalry or notable series between the two schools who will have played each other four times after this week. Two football teams with zero sourced animosity toward each other who have similar names does not mean their series of meetings is notable. Carson Wentz ( talk) 00:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Nobody cares about ur opinion 153.33.88.22 ( talk) 17:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Article is trying to avoid saying that this series is a "rivalry", but failing to establish why the series meets WP:GNG. 02:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC) ( u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿
  • Keep The "Confusion Bowl" name for this series was coined in 1945 and has been used for each and every meeting between the teams. The Miami-Miami game generates multiple dedicated articles from reliable sources every time it is played. This is not WP:ROUTINE coverage of football games; the articles are written specifically with regards to how abnormal the same-name matchup is. A named "bowl game" with dozens of reliable source articles written about it over 78 years is notable and passes WP:GNG regardless of the scant few times they have played or lack of "true rivalry". PK-WIKI ( talk) 04:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Agree 100%. 2600:4040:475D:6000:4826:FCEE:EEFD:B226 ( talk) 14:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per arguments above SUBWAYguy 13:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:GNG and comments above by User:Alvaldi and User:PK-WIKI. The article does not assert that the series is a "rivalry", and arguments against such a rivalry existing are thus a red herring. The bad feelings between the two Miami universities dates back to the founding of the Florida school in the 1920s (a century after the Ohio school), and I've added a bit of context on that. Cbl62 ( talk) 13:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per arguments above, there is enough documented history surrounding the series for it to be notable. I also do not understand the arguments that a page about a series between two teams has to be some kind of nasty rivalry in order for it to merit an article. Jlm87 ( talk) 16:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep per arguments above and per WP:GNG. The Confusion Bowl has been documented in previous verifiable citations, it has been discussed as such in each meaning. I am also confused about the need for it to be a rivalry to count - this is not a requirement per WP:GNG. If this standard is applied to this article it will result in several other sports-related articles and meetings between groups to be reviewed and proposed for deletion. DesertVulture ( talk) 05:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep notable series with with many reliable source articles that go beyond routine summaries. They explain the history between the two schools (concerning football and other topics) as well as the origins of the "Confusion Bowl" moniker. Frank Anchor 18:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As the Confusion Bowl has been known in media since 1945, I feel that should be enough to keep the page up. OrlandoApollosFan69 ( talk) 00:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep consistent news coverage of the name across several decades meets GNG. Furthermore, arguments on the extent of the rivalry and/or how much animosity/number of games played against each other are both subjective and irrelevant (no WP guideline specifies a minimum number of games). Even if its sole notability comes from being a mildly humorous coincidence in name, there is sufficient sourcing—including from outside the home markets of the two communities in question, which disqualifies the use of WP:ROUTINE to pooh-pooh them—to justify its inclusion here. J. Myrle Fuller ( talk) 21:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep All that matters is whether it passes GNG. Whether it can truly be called a "rivalry" is irrelevant. It has received significant coverage in numerous sources for a sustained period of time, and as such passes GNG. Smartyllama ( talk) 11:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Clearly passes WP:GNG. This should probably be speedily kept. -- Rockstone Send me a message! 05:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎ ( WP:G5). (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE 04:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Nirav Chahwala

Nirav Chahwala (  | 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)

References are typical WP:NEWSORGINDIA. A WP:BEFORE found nothing better to establish notability. Was originally draftified but moved back to mainspace by creator. CNMall41 ( talk) 17:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 16:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

North Valley City, North Dakota

North Valley City, North Dakota (  | 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 rail siding on the outskirts of Valley City; not a separate settlement. Mangoe ( talk) 16:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and North Dakota. Shellwood ( talk) 16:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. @ Mangoe: Not specifically related to North Valley City, but I found this list of resources about North Dakota place names: https://www.familysearch.org/en/wiki/North_Dakota_Gazetteers If you have access to any of these publications (perhaps at your local library), you might be able to better tell whether a GNIS point was a community or not. In general, searching for (name of state) gazetteer ought to help you find some helpful resources. * Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Without reliable sources that either describe this as a legally recognized populated place or provide significant coverage (GNIS is neither), we have nothing to establish notability. – dlthewave ☎ 18:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 16:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Enabled.in

Enabled.in (  | 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)

Page was created by the same person who created the website ( WP:COI). I also don't believe the coverage this has received is enough to pass WP:NCORP or WP:WEB. Sgubaldo ( talk) 15:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Websites, and India. Sgubaldo ( talk) 15:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article is nowhere near enough to meet WP:NCORP. There does not seem to be enough references to establish notability and it is written like an advertisement. The prose is also very poor. Article was created by the person who created the site. FlutterDash344 ( talk) 21:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Subject not notable, and the very short article is basically an advert. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎. This article was deleted CSD G5 before this discussion could be closed. Liz Read! Talk! 03:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Abdul Adnan

Abdul Adnan (  | 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)

Perhaps others see it differently, but I get the impression that the sources about this actor/businessperson aren't actually independent reliable sources, but press releases / self-penned hagiographies pretending to be real articles. Take e.g. the first source [30], from the Times of India (or something similar), used to source his awards and nominations. All very high praise, but it seems to be impossible to find out for which series or films he actually did receive these awards for? His IMDb entry (given as an external link) is empty... Fram ( talk) 15:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and India. Fram ( talk) 15:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this is almost certainly promotional, WP:NOTPROMO. For now, I've removed the most obvious advertisement for the subject's own product. Also, the so-called "Dada Saheb Phalke Indian Television award" seems to be a knock-off award. — siro χ o 16:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - First, PROMO is never a reason for deletion through AfD. If it is a case of TNT, it can be done through Speedy. That aside, the references are classic WP:NEWSORGINDIA so cannot be used to show notability. Notice they are all published within the last 60 days, written in promotional tone, and in publications that allow sponsored content. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 17:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    WP:NOTPROMO/ WP:PROMO is part of WP:NOT, which is a valid policy reason for deletion by WP:DEL-REASON#14. — siro χ o 19:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I believe it would be WP:DEL-REASON#1 since NOT would be criteria for speedy deletion. Being that you went with an WP:ATD and removed promotional content, and since AfC is WP:NOTCLEANUP, I am not sure how that criteria would still apply so the !vote was puzzling. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 20:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I see you did the same with another AfD that was moved by creator. I attempted to move it back but see you fixed it before I could figure out the process. Thanks for doing that. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 20:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 15:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

ISeleb

ISeleb (  | 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)

Disputed draftification. Useless references. As written fails WP:GNG 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

i just to revised and repair the article of Indonesian programs Tomboyprida ( talk) 15:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
To be accurate, @ Tomboyprida, you made an unwise unilateral move to mainspace of an article that required work as a draft. That move triggered this deletion discussion 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Tomboyprida has been blocked as a sock of the blocked article creator. Liz Read! Talk! 22:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 15:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Indah Setyani

Indah Setyani (  | 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)

Disputed draftification. Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm just trying to improve articles from Indonesia because there are very few articles there, please cooperate to be revised. thanks Tomboyprida ( talk) 16:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Tomboyprida your unilateral move of this article to mainspace has triggered this deletion discussion. It was not ready to be an article. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
so let's revise or add sentences that are worthy of being the main article. Tomboyprida ( talk) 16:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I hope that is achieved. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
thanks my friends to revised it althoght the few sources Tomboyprida ( talk) 16:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Tomboyprida has been blocked as a sock of the blocked article creator. Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Procedural Keep. The last AFD on this article was closed 2 days ago. Do not immediately renominate it for another AFD discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Cliffjumper

AfDs for this article:
Cliffjumper (  | 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)

Looked at google for notability, very few credible mainstream outlets talk about the character specifically, the majority of the coverage about him is about his toys from fansites. Grandmaster Huon ( talk) 15:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 15:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Unicron

Unicron (  | 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)

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22Unicron%22+-wikipedia&tbs=ar:1 Aside from sources about his appearance in Rise of the Beasts or his enthusiast oriented toy (which is not notable), I have found zero other credible sources about his history, reception or anything else that makes him notable. Grandmaster Huon ( talk) 15:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Procedural Keep due to questionable motives of nominator and flood of similar nominations leaving no time for anyone to do non-Google research. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk) 19:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Transformers: The Movie, which is what he is most known for. While I found these sources, they are fairly basic at best, and far below the standard of other more notable characters who were nevertheless merged. That said, I do think that the nominator needs to slow down on the AfDs, as editors should be here not just to tear articles down but to also build them up. But, a speedy keep should only apply if they are being nominated without merit, which just isn't the case here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 21:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Weak keep Per source found by Dream Focus, indicating numerous instances of significant coverage in reliable sources. While still weak, the nominator's rationale is no longer valid. This is more of a matter for a merge discussion than an AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 00:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per Zxcvbnm. There's a clear redirect target for a valid search term, but not enough WP:SIGCOV to support a separate article. Shooterwalker ( talk) 03:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect Lacking of SIGCOV. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 05:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/transformers-last-knight-ending-explained-who-is-unicron-1016892/ Search for "unicron" in that, see how much detail they give about him across various fictional media. An article written about him https://ew.com/movies/2017/06/23/transformers-the-last-knight-spoilers-unicron/ and another one here https://www.avclub.com/unicron-rise-of-the-beasts-transformers-1850491334 both of which give significant coverage. Dream Focus 20:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    only for cgi movie version of unicron, not animated movie unicron, which this article is primarily about. Grandmaster Huon ( talk) 17:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    WP:SOFIXIT. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 17:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep obviously satisfies GNG. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 00:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the arguments above. BOZ ( talk) 14:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep . Satisfies GNG easily. SnowFire ( talk) 18:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I appreciate the discussion must still run its course but it is worth noting that the nominator has been blocked for persistent bad faith actions. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk) 19:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as he is the biggest star of the 1986 Transformers the movie, and is a major character in the Transformers franchise. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 02:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as this seems to be the primary topic and meets the general notability guidelines. At the very least, I wanted to say that I oppose deletion because this can very well fit as a redirect to Unicorn (to which Unicron exists as a hatnote on that page). But, Unicron seems to have enough to stand on its own as an article, so redirection will likely not be necessary and this can just be kept. Utopes ( talk / cont) 06:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep with similar thoughts to my comments on other recent similar nominations. Multiple toys, character on tv, movies, videogame, etc. I'm sorry, just too many of these noms at once. — siro χ o 09:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 15:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Fallen (Transformers)

Fallen (Transformers) (  | 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)

Has been languishing in the notability area for two months now, checked google and found no sources about the character, only talking about the transformers movies themselves. Grandmaster Huon ( talk) 15:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Procedural Keep due to questionable motives of nominator and flood of similar nominations leaving no time for anyone to do non-Google research. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk) 19:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Comics and animation, and Toys. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep obviously satisfies GNG. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 00:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    citation needed Grandmaster Huon ( talk) 15:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment for the record I personally don't think two months is a particularly long time for something to have notability tags for, considering Wikipedia is a part-time hobby for editors (unless you guys are getting paid, in which case tell me how!). At the risk of invoking Other Stuff Exists, just the comics section alone has multiple articles that have been tagged for a decade-plus (many potentially violating BLP) which need more urgent attention, which once again suggests the nominator is following some sort of personal agenda rather than a genuine desire to improve the wider project. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk) 10:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Yes, I have a personal agenda, a personal agenda to rid Wikipedia of fancruft. Grandmaster Huon ( talk) 15:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Which you're focusing almost entirely on a single toy franchise in a non-constructive manner, which several experienced Wikipedians have asked you to modify and your answer has been to resort to petty " citation needed" responses. For someone aiming for "a Wikipedia with zero incidents of disruption" you're sure going out of your way to create as many as possible despite several recommendations that you work on constructive repair work before getting overly-involved in AfDs and the like. Remember, you're supposed to have only have returned to editing a month ago... BoomboxTestarossa ( talk) 16:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I appreciate the discussion must still run its course but it is worth noting that the nominator has been blocked for persistent bad faith actions. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk) 19:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I see no support for deleting this article. Liz Read! Talk! 15:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Leroy Jethro Gibbs

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

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

I am sending this to AfD because I may be wrong and there are independent, reliable sources that don't just talk about him in passing (see Ziva David as an example). If there is not, I would recommend a merge and/or redirect to List of NCIS characters#Leroy Jethro Gibbs. Spinixster (chat!) 14:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 14:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Upon a quick read-through, this article absolutely has problems. It feels bloated, and it seems to teeter over the line into in-universe perspective. However, if the issue is whether the character is notable on its own for its cultural impact, I feel satisfied that it is. I typed "cultural impact of Jethro Gibbs" into Google--not even Google Scholar--and got a page full of strong-looking sources right away (two of which are probably usable): Reuters Newsweek 2022 People didn't just write about this character when the show was in its heyday. There's recent stuff too. That's in addition to blogs and YouTube videos analyzing the character. We wouldn't use most of them for sources, but they're there. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 20:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC) EDIT: And some of this stuff on Google Scholar might be good [31]... And I'm seeing more than one editorial comparing Gibbs to real-life political figures... [32] Darkfrog24 ( talk) 20:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC) Addendum: This article has been nominated for deletion a lot, but the last time was over thirteen years ago. A request for revaluation was not inappropriate. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 22:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'll be evaluating the sources:
    • The first source is an opinion piece, which isn't bad, but it doesn't necessarily prove notability.
    • The second is a WP:TRIVIA / WP:NOTTVTROPES of sorts, which also doesn't necessarily prove notability but can be used in the storylines section.
    • Fourth source compares him to real-life political figures, which also doesn't necessarily prove his notability but can still be used.
    The Google Scholar sources can still probably be used, though depending on what they cover, they may or may not prove notability. Spinixster (chat!) 03:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Excellent, you should evaluate the sources. However, I think the fact that journalists writing editorials (I mean the Reuters and Citizen-Times sources) use this fictional character as a touchstone when evaluating real-life society and politicians is very much indicative of that character's notability. It shows that he's leaked out of his own sphere and into the general cultural consciousness. The second author mentions Jethro Gibbs in the same breath as John Wayne and expects the reader to know who he is without explanation. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 03:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    I interpreted it as meaning that the character is popular enough for people to know who he is. Popularity doesn't equal notability ( WP:N: Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below. So your best hope is Google Scholar. Spinixster (chat!) 08:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    "My" best "hope"? I think you might be overestimating my role in this. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 12:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    You are once again misinterpreting what I'm saying, but whatever, I said what I said. Spinixster (chat!) 14:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep per sources found by DarkFrog. Willing to change votes depending on how the discussion goes but I think what's been discussed satisfies. Pokelego999 ( talk) 05:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:HEY. The citations provided, and comments made, by DarkFrog have convinced me that standalone notability is established. A. Randomdude0000 ( talk) 03:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, at this point. A lead character in a highly notable series will almost always have sufficient coverage, and this one does. BD2412 T 14:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, the sources found by DarkFrog seem sufficient to showcase notability, though the article and especially the "Personality" section is in an absolutely parlous state. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 02:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 15:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Dinobot (Beast Wars)

Dinobot (Beast Wars) (  | 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 real notability here after checking the news sources [33], all I find are content farms and fansites. Grandmaster Huon ( talk) 14:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Procedural Keep due to questionable motives of nominator and flood of similar nominations leaving no time for anyone to do non-Google research. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk) 19:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep obviously satisfies GNG. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 00:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    citation needed Grandmaster Huon ( talk) 15:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I appreciate the discussion must still run its course but it is worth noting that the nominator has been blocked for persistent bad faith actions. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk) 19:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - There are some sources in the article already, but additionally: A good amount of character discussion occurs in this comic review. I know it's CBR, but this is an actual review as opposed to a listicle (where he definitely shows up in a few as well). Dinobot comes up in several of CBR's pieces on this run, but most recap the story (another shortcoming at times). This one spends more time on Dinobot himself. He seems to be one of the more notable aspects of Beast Wars highlighted by Collider in this piece, and while Flickering Myth covered an entire three-season run, discussion dedicated to Dinobot exceeded WP:100WORDS here. Polygon also dedicates quite a bit of discussion of him in a couple different pieces: One where Dinobot comes up in discussion of the recent film Transformers: Rise of the Beasts where he doesn't appear to even be a character, and another in coverage of Transformers: War for Cybertron Trilogy. Plenty of sources WP:NEXIST. This one doesn't need as much trimming as some of the others, but a little could stand to be removed. - 2pou ( talk) 23:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 15:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Vish Khanna

Vish Khanna (  | 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)

Unsourced WP:BLP. Prod removed for some reason. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep Talk 14:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Journalism, Radio, and Canada. Hey man im josh ( talk) 14:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Delete Non-notable media personality with the CBC. I've found a few things written by this individual [34], [35], but nothing we can use to establish notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete because the person does not pass WP:BIO. TipsyElephant ( talk) 10:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I'm certainly aware of Vish Khanna, because as a Canadian editor who works on musical topics I often cite stuff he wrote for Exclaim! — in fact, I distinctly remember adding a citation to a piece of his writing within the past two days, though damned if I can remember off the top of my head what article I added it to. But the notability test for media personalities isn't the extent to which they've been the creator of coverage about other things, it's the extent to which they've been the subject of coverage created by other people. However, the only references here are to Blogspot blogs, one of which is an interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person and the other is a glancing namecheck of his existence in an interview with somebody else — but that's not the kind of sourcing it takes, and I can't find anything else that would count as GNG-building coverage. Reliable sourcing means real media outlets and books covering his work as news, not Blogspot blogs or staff profiles on the self-published websites of his own current or former employers. Bearcat ( talk) 16:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Roblox games. Liz Read! Talk! 15:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Frontlines (Roblox)

Frontlines (Roblox) (  | 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)

BEFORE shows no more usable source, only this [36] . Thus, failing WP:N. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 14:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to List of Roblox games The sources are largely just news articles saying "hey this exists", but WP:SIGCOV requires the sources to be able to fully encompass the game, which is difficult without previews/reviews. There's already a page for these sorts of Roblox-created games, most of which don't merit an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 16:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of Roblox games; As the page creator I'll self admit that I was unable to stretch the sources used as much as I expected. I still believe this can be a standalone subject, but I'll let time decide that on if the game gets more coverage during the Roblox Innovation Awards.
Negative MP1 16:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect or Delete per nom. This article has no signs of notablity at all. Fails WP:GNG. Summerslam2022 ( talk) 18:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Oh come on. I understand and agree with there being a merger/redirect since the subject is covered elsewhere, but there's still notability to the subject, with several articles that discussed it majorly in some form. The article shouldn't be completely deleted. Negative MP1 19:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Why would you oppose the proposed redirect target? Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply

The Animals of Farthing Wood (disambiguation)

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

There are two articles in this disambiguation page, but one article is now a redirect. MirrorPlanet ( talk) 12:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 13:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. All three are related and described in the main article, so this dab page has no purpose. Clarityfiend ( talk) 10:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Clarityfiend. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 20:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 11:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Guido Moerkotte

Guido Moerkotte (  | 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:NPROF and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Computing, and Germany. UtherSRG (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    No, it does not. It passes multiple WP:NPROF criteria (at least #1 and #5). He is holding his own chair at university of Mannheim, which equals a distinguished professor. This is also mentioned in the article. So please remove the nomination for deletion or be more precise. MaxEmanuel ( talk) 13:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Pass of WP:Prof#C1. Having said that, the BLP is very poorly written. Xxanthippe ( talk) 02:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC). reply
  • Keep. Passes NPROF#1 with an h-index of 44 and 19 papers with 100+ citations. -- hroest 21:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Gil's Thrilling (And Filling) Blog

Gil's Thrilling (And Filling) Blog (  | 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)

Cannot find enough WP:SIGCOV to establish that this blog passes WP:GNG. I have performed a search within local newspapers but can only find passing mentions of the blog within short restaurant reviews by Gil Garduño. pinktoebeans (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 11:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Total Experience

Total Experience (  | 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)

Apparently Gartner identified "Total Experience" as a trend in 2021, which spurred a number of knock-off articles with essentially the same content, but now, two years later, the trend appears to have not taken off as Gartner predicted, and little to no actual information can be found about this topic. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete On initial before I thought this was going to be keep, but on review I can only find one additional reliable use of the term:
https://www.techradar.com/opinion/total-experience-a-trend-for-future-business
WP:NOTNEO implies at least three sources are needed, and I couldn't find two others, hence my vote. BrigadierG ( talk) 12:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete Plenty of mentions of the term in PR items, nothing beyond that. [37] is about the best I can find. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 11:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Metropolitan Police Public Order Operational Command Unit

Metropolitan Police Public Order Operational Command Unit (  | 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 particularly notable entity, of three sources cited, one is dead and other two are wrong (relating to dog unit and mounted branch).

Cannot find many reliable external sources on this unit, many are Wikipedia mirrors. Elshad ( talk) 11:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 11:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Embassy of Palestine, Tashkent

Embassy of Palestine, Tashkent (  | 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)

Embassies are not inherently notable. All this article does is confirm it exists. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar ( talk) 09:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. This does not prevent an editorial decision to merge or redirect in the future. Stifle ( talk) 08:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Orna Datz

Orna Datz (  | 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)

Thoroughly fails WP:NBIO. Not a single source is cited, and it is poorly formatted. QuickQuokka [⁠ talk • contribs 07:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Strong Delete Unsourced WP:BLP. Possible redirect or merge to article Duo Datz shoudl should sufficient sources be found. scope_creep Talk 14:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge completely and with positive prejudice into Duo Datz. Both the nomination and the sole reaction are based on false assumptions and disregard the golden WP:NEXIST rule. As such, these should be completely discounted. Does that mean that the article should be kept? Not necessarily. The article is so short that all its contents can be merged into Duo Datz without creating any concern of WP:UNDUE. This recommendation reflects the length of the article and is not a statement of Datz's notability, which she passes at the greatest of ease. If someone wants to create a more developed article on "Datza" later on, they are very welcome to do so! gidonb ( talk) 18:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep, there were numerous articles from the Israeli major media outlets from the 80th and 90th when her fame was at its peak. Tzahy ( talk) 11:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - she won 3rd place at the Eurovision Song Contest 1991 per 1. There is probably enough coverage to support her notability for article inclusion, such as 2, 3, 4, 5. - Indefensible ( talk) 06:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    The Hebrew article on the subject also has a lot more coverage and references which can be translated for improving this article. - Indefensible ( talk) 06:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Merge to Duo Datz. Notable as a member of Duo Datz only. That article has been greatly expanded and covers most, if not all, aspects of this individual's notable endeavors. It even contains a section on her personal life. This bio article duplicates much of the duo's article without the context. Grk1011 ( talk) 13:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    If you look at the Hebrew article, there seems to be a lot more than just the Duo Datz stuff. - Indefensible ( talk) 15:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Indefensible: Hmmm... Maybe I can translate the article to English, as I am a native Hebrew speaker. QuickQuokka [⁠ talk • contribs 14:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Certainly would be a good candidate for translation, I think she meets for inclusion per my vote earlier. - Indefensible ( talk) 19:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • 'Comment I spoke to QuickQuokka. The editor is not going to do the work. So its a merge. Most of the article is already in the expanded Duo Datz. scope_creep Talk 06:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    So if you think it should be a merge, that means your prior vote for delete is struck, right? But if there is known material which could be used for expansion, then we should actually keep the article with a translation request. - Indefensible ( talk) 01:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 ( t • c) 09:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Phillip Good

Phillip Good (  | 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 statistician, article created by an WP:SPA. Last paragraph is essentially advertising. Tercer ( talk) 12:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep, AfD is not clean-up. The subject is the author of multiple textbooks in his subject, textbooks that have been independently reviewed. [38] Some of his texts have run to multiple editions over considerable periods. [39] By all means delete anything that's promotional and reformat to make the text more appropriate, but deletion is inappropriate. Elemimele ( talk) 12:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Being a co-author of a textbook that has received a single review is very thin gruel. Now being the sole author of a textbook that has received many reviews and editions is much better, but still not enough if that's everything he's done.
I did check the 3 papers that are mentioned as his "selected publications", and they are not at all well-cited. this has 115 citations, which is rather little for medicine, and he is anyway only one coauthor of a long list of authors. this has 6 citations, which is almost nothing even for statistics, and this has 7 citations. Tercer ( talk) 14:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep very thin mentions as above, weak pass at notability for Scholar. I think having 6 and 7 citations is still more than most academics we see here. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    No, 6 and 7 citations is nothing. Any random PhD student has that. WP:NPROF requires much more. Tercer ( talk) 09:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I concur that 6 and 7 citations is far, far below what we expect for a WP:PROF#C1 pass. I definitely crossed that threshold well before I was done with graduate school. Nothing mentioned in this discussion so far amounts to a pass of any applicable criterion, in my opinion. Right now, I'm inclining towards a "delete" !vote, but if multiple books have been reviewed multiple times apiece, that could change (per WP:NAUTHOR and maybe WP:PROF#C4). XOR'easter ( talk) 21:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • weak delete the three papers that are mentioned as major achievements have very low citation counts so this will not pass WP:NPROF. He may pass WP:NAUTHOR having 2 books with one review each (which is the minimal criterion), but for one of the books he is not a sole author so I also dont see the subject passing this bar. -- hroest 18:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep After hitting up JSTOR, I believe that WP:NAUTHOR is met for the reason I suggested above. Reviews of A Practitioner's Guide to Resampling for Data Analysis, Data Mining, and Modeling: [40] [41] [42]. Reviews of the co-authored Common Errors in Statistics (and How to Avoid Them): [43] [44]. Review of The A-Z Of Error-Free Research: [45] ( [46] is very short). Reviews of Applying Statistics in the Courtroom: A New Approach for Attorneys and Expert Witnesses: [47] [48]. Reviews of Permutation, Parametric and Bootstrap Tests of Hypotheses: [49] [50] [51] [52]. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:AUTHOR and the reviews found by XOR'easter. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist for closing an old log, and to seek some further input on the reviews found by XOR'easter.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 06:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Naijatastic

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

Created since 2021, the sources available are paid for (Partner at TechCabal is a tag for paid sources) and it is laced with a lot of unreliable sources. Best, Reading Beans ( talk) 06:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete per Reading Beans and his/her source evaluation. Given our discussions elsewhere about the difficulties evaluating Nigerian sources, I trust his/her judgement. This is tricky for oyiboes like me. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 06:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete per nominator. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 20:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Sources are Paid/PR sources as mentioned by ReadingBeans. Jamiebuba ( talk) 14:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I agree that all current sources are only promotional and I tried to find some other sources. I could find anything but promo and presentation-like articles, such as in Tribune Online Nigeria, This Day Live, or Sun News. There is no external coverage in these sources as well, apart from the typical advertisement presentation. Chiserc ( talk) 08:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was ‎ keep. NYC Guru ( talk) 08:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply

List of vampire films

List of vampire films (  | 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)

Impossibly broad in scope; would be much better off as a category tree. Currently contains hundreds of entries and is sourced mostly to IMDB and other sources of user-generated content. Many entries in the "notes" column are copied verbatim from IMDB descriptions. Prose at the beginning of each section is mostly WP:SYNTH. — SamX [ talk · contribs 05:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 05:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The list has primary sources, mostly to IMDb and user-generated websites, which are not accepted. It is also too broad. This list is better off as a category. There is no reason for this list to exist. FlutterDash344 ( talk) 06:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Nothing about this is especially broad, and having IMDb sources is not a reason for deletion. ★Trekker ( talk) 07:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep. The guideline says: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Here I don't think that it is reasonable to say it hasn't. (But to be on the safe side, see this or this, for example) On top of that, a list can help organizing the films, for example chronologically, which a category can't. Note that there is also List of vampire television series. As for sourcing, required clean up and prose, it is another issue, as StarTrekker explained. And I too do not think it is "impossibly" broad. And if this is a real concern, let's split it in 1895-1950; 1951-2024, or by regions. But again, this is not the issue here.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Mushy. There is notability about this list's existence, especially in terms of ranking. IGN, IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, Buzzfeed, Reader's Digest, etc. However, the article needs some work for sure. Conyo14 ( talk) 16:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep passes WP:NLIST, not seeing a valid deletion reason, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 23:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per NLIST. I've removed some unnotable films (i.e. lacking articles) and miniseries. Clarityfiend ( talk) 10:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Split. Article has no context. Why does one need to know every vampire film? What knowledge is grasped? This list is horribly maintained, implying there is some Nosferatu series, it includes material such as production countries, year of release that are not backed up by their sources, has poor quality sources. Now the topic is also far too broad. If anything like this could be maintained, i'd cut it down by decades or even a century. What is the limit on this? Is a vampire film any film that has a vampire in once? the article "Vampire film" itself states it is a genre, but then just lists random vampire films with no context to its history or if anyone considers it a genre. Too broad of meaning until some rules can be established, and this article is going to get worse before "saving" what junk we have makes it any better. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 19:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It's useful research to scholars and the public and what are you going to do, delete all film lists on Wikipedia? 5Q5| ✉ 09:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:LC items 2, 5, and 9. Stifle ( talk) 08:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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! 04:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Pricena

Pricena (  | 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:NCORP. A WP:BEFORE found very little coverage and nothing in-depth to demonstrate notability. CNMall41 ( talk) 04:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Daily, North Dakota

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

Another GNIS stub, this time for a T intersection where there is a farm. Searching is hopeless. Mangoe ( talk) 04:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. given the improvements in the article since the nomination and the nominator's change of position regarding their nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 04:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Murrow Turning Over in His Grave

Murrow Turning Over in His Grave (  | 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 originally redirected this article to Say You Will (album), because this doesn't appear to be a particularly notable song. Across the seven sources, one of them is a YouTube link to a live performance, which certainly does not demonstrate notability, and another is a link to a fan site that has posted the lyrics of the song. Among the other sources (all of which qualify as reliable, as far as I know), none of them independently discuss this song, they all either fall under the category of album reviews that name-check the song (Slant), magazine profiles (Guitar Player), editorials about the subject of the song (Washington Post), or dead links that have no archives provided (Entertainment Weekly, FASPE Journalism). This doesn't look to have much worth keeping, and I do see this as a case where it should just be redirected to the main album article, but I will open this up for discussion, so that consensus can be established. JeffSpaceman ( talk) 03:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to Say You Will (album). As per the nomination, this song doesn't appear to be notable. Normally, I would skim the references myself but the nomination already did that. By the way, thanks for the due diligence. In a world of unhelpful cruft, you stand taller. IncompA 04:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep for this Fleetwood Mac song, per the Washington Post article which specifically builds the title and article around the topic of the song and thus meets WP:SIGCOV, the Guitar Player article which mentions its arrangement, etc. Easily meeting WP:GNG notability the song focuses on Edward R. Murrow, a hero of American journalism (full disclosure, I'm a journalism graduate and have worked in the field and related fields), and uses the fact that Murrow was and is known as an honest journalist to call into question the change in the way journalism diverted away from Murrow's type of integrity - making his integrity a touchstone of American values. That this song honors Murrow, that it is well covered in the media mentioned above, and that it meets GNG, passes the bar as a notable Wikipedia topic. Randy Kryn ( talk) 04:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I don't want to cast aspersions here, but it feels like you have a strong conflict of interest with the subject of the song. I am not trying to devalue your input, but saying things along the lines of, "The song focuses on [Murrow], a hero of American journalism... and uses the fact that Murrow was... known as an honest journalist to call into question the change in the way journalism diverted away from Murrow's type of integrity" unfortunately does not prove anything to me other than your passion for Murrow. Ultimately, your personal opinion on a subject involved in article, positive or negative, should not play a role in discussions like these. Struck per Liz's comment below. JeffSpaceman ( talk) 22:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    As for the rest of your argument, you state that the Washington Post named their article after the song. Please take a moment to read WP:Notability is not inherited, which explains why this type of reasoning should be avoided. Similarly, just because the Guitar Player article noted characteristics of the song does not mean that the song has significant, independent coverage in this magazine, something that is required of multiple reliable sources to establish notability of any subject, and something that unfortunately just is not present on this article at the moment. As for your closing statement, the fact that the song honors Murrow does not automatically render it notable. Once again, please read the subsection I linked at the beginning of this paragraph.
    I stand by all that I have argued. There is nothing here that I see being worth keeping. JeffSpaceman ( talk) 04:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
What a backhanded accusation ("No, really, believe me, I don't mean to cast aspersions here") that I have a conflict of interest because of my background. Excuse me? Do you mean that Wikipedia editors who have been educated or worked in a professional field that relates to a topic all have conflicts of interest and should be dismissed? There are many medical professionals, scientists, researchers, college professors, and on and on, who are valued Wikipedians. This is absurd, and striking out your entire first paragraph above would be a good start. Randy Kryn ( talk) 04:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I'm not trying to say that you have a conflict of interest merely because of your background -- in fact, I never said that because of your background in journalism, your opinion here is invalid. I simply stated that it seems like you have a conflict of interest related to Murrow specifically: your descriptions of him being a "hero of American journalism" and talking about his "integrity" have little (if any) neutrality present in them and simply do not belong in this discussion. Please don't bring your personal opinion about Murrow into this, talk about why removing the contents of this page isn't a good idea. I'm really not trying to come down on you, but your personal opinion on the subject of the song is irrelevant in this discussion. See above JeffSpaceman ( talk) 22:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC) JeffSpaceman ( talk) 04:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
In essence saying "Hand to God, believe me, I didn't mean what I said" doesn't cut it. You have cast aspersion and I request you strike a lot of wording from both your comments. Not only for me but for all Wikipedians who have worked in a topic-field related to AfD's such as this (and please read WP:Casting aspersions to understand why I'm being adamant about this for, again, not just myself but for other Wikipedians who you would cast into the same light). As for Murrow, hopefully you know who he was and what he accomplished. Since the article meets WP:GNG it's perfectly fine to talk about the topic of the song. Randy Kryn ( talk) 04:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
My knowledge of Murrow is irrelevant here. You still have not proven that the article meets WP:GNG. I assessed all of the sources in my original paragraph, and I came away from it with two reliable sources that name-checked the song (Slant, Guitar Player), with neither source providing special emphasis on it, an editorial about Murrow that, despite taking its name from it, only talks about the song across two meager paragraphs (Washington Post), and dead links without archives (Entertainment Weekly, FASPE Journalism). The only other sources were a YouTube link to a live performance and some fan site that posted the lyrics, neither of which is a reliable source of information by any stretch. Once again, please comment on the content of the article specifically, not a subject of it. That's not what this discussion is meant for. See above JeffSpaceman ( talk) 22:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC) JeffSpaceman ( talk) 04:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The linked Washington Post article covers the song with enough focus to meet both WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. I already said that above. Now how about my point about striking your aspersion language. Randy Kryn ( talk) 05:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I don't see where I casted aspersions, exactly. Regarding my first paragraph of my initial response to your vote, I maintain that your personal opinion about the subject of an article does not belong in a deletion discussion. Calling him a "hero of American journalism" and "an honest journalist" with "integrity" feels like unnecessary puffery, if you ask me. I don't see where I've made any personal attacks towards you or anyone else, I'm merely pointing out what I see as biased, peacocking language. Nothing more. See above JeffSpaceman ( talk) 22:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC) JeffSpaceman ( talk) 05:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Commenting on the subject of an article from someone who has experience and knowledge in a field of endeavor has seemed helpful and beneficial in other AfD's, RMs, etc. that I've read. Medical professionals, biologists, astronomers, and many others give their opinions about topics. without being accused of puffery, peacocking and such. So maybe all I'm saying is that you shouldn't make a habit of that, nor a habit of doubling down on your accusations when someone calls you on them. The topic of the article is a valid discussion point, especially, as I've repeated, the Washington Post article covers your concerns about notability. Randy Kryn ( talk) 05:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep - the song is notable for its production techniques and has been widely singled out for discussion by critics among a lengthy 18-track album. I've improved and diversified the referencing but is a work in progress. There are quite a few book/print references as well but I ma not experienced at citing these properly if anyone else wanted to take a look, if not I will attempt to educate myself in the correct formatting. Psywave ( talk) 09:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Psywave, I've added a Chicago Tribune source, done by cut-and-pasting the https information and formatting it as a reference. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep - Has adequate sources and coverage. Dobbyelf62 ( talk) 18:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. An editor doesn't have a COI if they have an opinion, concerns about COI would apply if an editor had a connection to this band or recording which is not true here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Strong keep due to the sourcing showing notability and being in depth. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk) 16:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I don't see any WP:SIGCOV of the song in the sources in the article. The Washington Post article just quotes the song's lyrics in a single sentence, and then is briefly referenced in a quote in the next sentence. A redirect is probably fine. SportingFlyer T· C 19:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    The song is from 2003, the Washington Post article from 2005. To think that the term just popped into everyone's head by accident after the song was released is stretching it. When multiple relistings after a good number of Keeps show up on an AfD, I hope closers take the full discussion into account and not just what happens after a relisting. Famous song topic, famous singing group, and the hope that journalists can someday again be as honest as Murrow was in his prime, this article seems a WP:COMMONSENSE keep and yes, it does meet GNG with the Washington Post coverage using the term that came out of nowhere and was then "on everybody's lips" and the Chicago Tribune's wonderful wording in its review praising Buckingham's guitar work on the song: "...from the psychedelic sun shower he conjures on "Murrow...". Please also realize that this song is not only a notable "song" but is a notable piece of journalistic history in popular culture - not every day that songs about journalists hit the airwaves. Randy Kryn ( talk) 23:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    With all due respect, neither the Washington Post and Chicago Tribune are significant coverage. The Chicago Tribune coverage of the song is literally just (from the psychedelic sun shower he conjures on "Murrow" to the banjolike picking he brings to "Thrown Down"), and the Washington Post is a single sentence of coverage which mostly just restates the lyric. All of the other sources are just about the album the song is on with the exception of the Quietus, so there's clearly no WP:GNG pass here and I don't know why you're claiming it's satisfied. SportingFlyer T· C 23:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
No, Buckingham's Guitar Player quote focuses on the song, the others mention it well, there is at least one book source and, as you point out, The Quietus section and, as I said, the 2005 Washington Post article which purposely focuses on the phenomena of many sources suddenly talking about Murrow rolling over in his grave - two years after this song was released. All of this is nit-picking the notability of an already well-written article with a dozen good sources. Significant coverage doesn't have to be a cover story in Time, it is a focus on a particular song in many different publications. Randy Kryn ( talk) 23:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment I already voted to keep this article earlier, so I'll provide some additional comments here. First off, it's important to mention that the article has transformed considerably since it was first nominated for deletion back on August 15th. In their reasoning, JeffSpaceman conducted a thorough review where they cited various issues with the page. One of the sources was simply a link to a live performance, another reference simply contained the lyrics to the song, and another had a dead url. Myself and other editors took note of these concerns and have resolved them.

Another issue brought up was the perceived lack of substantial coverage. A handful of sources simply reference the song in passing, and while this alone does not amount to sufficient coverage, it should be noted that several other references go into greater detail about the song, including the lyrical inspiration, background on when the song was written (with mention of the Gift of Screws recording sessions), and some of the production techniques utilized. Some of these references were added after the article was nominated, which warrants a reevaluation of the article's current merits. Dobbyelf62 ( talk) 20:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply

I agree with virtually everything you have written above. When I nominated this for deletion a few weeks ago, what I saw was an article with either unreliable sources or ones that did not establish independent notability of the song itself. Looking at it now, it's clear that those issues have been mostly resolved, and I would be willing to withdraw my nomination. Addressing the disagreements by User:SportingFlyer above, User:Randy Kryn is quite right when he points out that significant coverage does not have to be a cover story, just focus on a particular subject across multiple different, independent publications. That is exactly what this article has improved in since I nominated it, and it's why I can't stand by my initial nomination anymore. JeffSpaceman ( talk) 11:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
I still disagree, sorry. I understand that significant coverage isn't a Time cover story, but this article has been cobbled together off of single sentences in articles that just name-check it, since the articles are either about the album or about the subject of the song as a whole. Guitar Player, for instance, is simply a two-sentence quote from the singer in a list of quotes about the different songs on the album. Almost all of the references are like the Stereogum article: BUCKINGHAM: Yes. “Bleed To Love Her” ended up on Say You Will, “Murrow Turning Over In His Grave,” “Come” … but there were still all these other ones. Those x10 isn't significant coverage per the GNG, sorry. A redirect to the album's page makes sense. SportingFlyer T· C 11:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Thank you JeffSpaceman, it's all too rare that a nominator reverses their stand (a study in the strength of cognitive dissonance, which is usually found in politics and sports). Maybe you can toss a 'Keep' onto your comment to offset the above response. This AfD did, as all good AfD's do, garner more attention and added sources to the article, which is, as you point out, well improved since your nomination. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
User:Randy Kryn: Am I allowed to place a "keep" vote in an AfD I started? I just ask, because I don't know if I can do that. JeffSpaceman ( talk) 14:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Of course you can. SportingFlyer T· C 15:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
I did not think that this was possible. I thought that, as the editor who started this AfD, I could only start discussion, I couldn't vote either way. Is there a policy page I can look at for further information? I'm just wondering, so that I can be assured based on policy. JeffSpaceman ( talk) 16:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Liz: Is this possible?
DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk) 16:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
JeffSpaceman, if the nominator changes their mind, and there are no votes for Deletion, then the nominator can withdraw the nomination and it can be closed as Keep. If there are Delete opinions, I think the proper thing to do is to strike the portion of your deletion nomination that is no longer valid (using <s>Nomination</s>) and putting a Keep opinion below your nomination statement. It doesn't happen a lot but it does happen that a nominator changes their opinion when sources are brought to light. Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Wasn't by me, by Dobbyelf62 who deserves Thanks! Randy Kryn ( talk) 23:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Leigh Sherer

Leigh Sherer (  | 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 as a beauty pageant contestant. Let'srun ( talk) 03:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 03:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Glen Huntly Road

Glen Huntly Road (  | 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:GEOROAD. LibStar ( talk) 03:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Mahesh Kumar Garg

Mahesh Kumar Garg (  | 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 can find no evidence from the existing or available sources that the subject satisfies our notability requirements for WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Thilsebatti ( talk) 02:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Dear Wikipedia Administrators, I am preferring this appeal to enable me to keep the Wikipedia page for Mahesh Kumar Garg who is an accomplished poet and writer. I am aware that there is a policy against creating autobiographies on Wikipedia. The page for Mahesh Kumar Garg has been created after extensive research on poet's life, and I have included citations to the sources which are all authentic and comply with Wikipedia's standards and policy. I have also been respectful of other editors and have not engaged in any disruptive behavior. It is requested to revoke the block so that I can continue working on the Wikipedia page, which will be of help to the community and millions of readers and scholars of Hindi Literature.

Hello, MaheshGargBedhadak,
AFD discussions are determined by consensus of editors so your plea to keep this article is one opinion. The other editors have based their opinions on Wikipedia policies which carries more weight for the admin who will evaluate and close this discussion at the end of a week. But if you want to continue to work on this article, you should request that it be "Draftified", either to Draft or User space. As of the discussion right now, this is a more plausible outcome than a "Keep". Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Trent Staggs (American politician)

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

Being a mayor and a candidate for U.S. Senate is not enough for a WP page in and of itself. The sources cited are either the city's website, election results, or routine coverage of his administration or campaigns from local media outlets. Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 03:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • The subject has decent sources like https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trent-skaggs-utah-senate-mitt-romney_n_646d1259e4b056fd46dd071d, I think it might not be a bad thing to expand coverage to include such articles if they are well referenced and not overly promotional. - Indefensible ( talk) 04:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I have added several points and citations from various news sources. I hope that addresses the concerns. Hilton80 ( talk) 22:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete mayors and candidates do not have inherent notability per WP:10YT. He is not independently notable of his candidacy and should be covered on the Utah senatorial election page. SportingFlyer T· C 12:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Many articles for mayors and candidates are not as good as this so policy can be used to exclude them, but subject here probably has enough to meet WP:GNG. - Indefensible ( talk) 15:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    We exclude candidates even if they meet WP:GNG. He's a small town mayor and candidates are almost always redirected to the election they're running in unless they're independently important, he's not as a mayor of a small town, and this article was specifically created to WP:PROMOte a senate candidate - it's in the very first edit summary. SportingFlyer T· C 15:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Article's not in bad shape and it covers some things outside of his political activities. Well sourced too. I've seen worse articles that are still around here. -- TDKR Chicago 101 ( talk) 20:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    This is not just a discussion about whether or not the page is well-written, it's also a discussion about whether or not Trent Staggs is notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 21:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess changes made to the article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I believe Staggs is worthy of a page, but it definitely needs work. The fact that he doesn't even have an officeholder infobox makes me wonder if there are POV issues at work here. Going to work on some edits. PickleG13 ( talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Cuba, North Dakota

Cuba, North Dakota (  | 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 GNIS stub which geolocates to a grain elevator complex by the railroad. The oldest topo labels a building (no longer extant) as "town hall", but that's not really good enough. Searching is heavily masked by a trade deal but got nothing. Mangoe ( talk) 02:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Cha Jong-sok

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 02:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Master Piano Technicians of America

Master Piano Technicians of America (  | 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 unable to find evidence that this association meets N:ORG Star Mississippi 02:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2023 Rhode Island's 1st congressional district special election. Liz Read! Talk! 01:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Gabe Amo

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

There are few sources cited. Some are simply website directories, while others are direct links to events that Amo spoke at. The few articles cited are mostly local sources giving routine coverage to his White House job or his campaign. Doesn't seem to have gotten the ongoing, in-depth, national coverage required for a Wikipedia article; in my opinion, this page fails both WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 01:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - a WP:BEFORE search shows enough significant and in-depth coverage to meet WP:NPOL:
- Skipple ☎ 22:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • But all of this is just coverage of his congressional campaign. Would this not be considered routine coverage expected of any House candidate in a competitive race? Remember WP:1E BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 01:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment:I think the campaign + the white house position is enough to counter WP:1E concerns. However, I also don't think he meets WP:NPOL. So unless he meets WP:GNG, he should be deleted. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 18:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now, reexamine if he loses election Gabe Amo is currently running for Congress. If he wins the election, then I believe he is definitely notable enough to keep on Wikipedia. However, if he loses, I'll rethink my position. ❤History Theorist❤ 23:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    WP:TOOSOON means this is done the other way around - delete for now, restore if he wins. SportingFlyer T· C 14:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per comments above - I'm in this district and just went to Wikipedia to educate myself on the candidates. Llajwa ( talk) 12:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    That's not really the job of Wikipedia. We're not supposed to be a database of biographies, we're supposed to have articles on notable people. After the election is over, if Amo loses, how many people will need to "educate" themselves on him? BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 17:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete a WP:PROMOtional article in support of his political campaign. Should probably have already been deleted by now. The first version of this - before he announced a candidacy - fails WP:GNG. If he wins the campaign we can restore the article, but since we consistently delete people who are only notable for being candidates, we shouldn't keep this around as he's only notable because he's running for office. SportingFlyer T· C 14:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Doesn't meet GNG just by being a candidate for office. Seems like this article has been used mostly to pander the subject's image, especially considering recent editing activity. StartOkayStop ( talk) 04:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to 2023 Rhode Island's 1st congressional district special election as a usual and appropriate outcome for candidates for the US House of Representatives. There is no sense that the subject has received the national and international coverage that would suggest the subject is much more notable than average. Any relevant information can be added to the page about the election. -- Enos733 ( talk) 16:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    I support a redirect. SportingFlyer T· C 18:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    I would also back a redirect. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 19:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply

WODN-LD

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

Another non-notable LPTV; who else carries Deutsche Welle OTA? Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 02:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Here are your Cliffs Notes on this station. It's the last of four LPTVs that formed the Dunes Television Network, a regional LPTV network in Northwest Indiana that mostly relayed All News Channel with the odd Indiana collegiate event broadcast and local news inserts from WSBT-TV. LeSEA Broadcasting acquired the others in the 1990s and 2000s but not this one; those are all now dead, having not been converted to digital service. There is not a lot of coverage to go on. Clippings: [65] [66] [67] Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 08:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Sammi Brie: suffice it to say, this is a topic area where if she can't find sufficient coverage to satisfy the GNG, who can? Perhaps a brief mention of those WSBT-TV news inserts on the Dunes Television Network could be added to that station's article somewhere, but I doubt that would be enough to, for instance, merit any redirect. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Jeffrey Revell-Reade

Jeffrey Revell-Reade (  | 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)

Orphan article. Only known for his fraud so WP:BLP1E applies. LibStar ( talk) 02:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - WP:ONEEVENT. He and his accomplice committed fraud. Both were convicted and went to prison. There's not anything else to this article, except how much his house cost. There are only three sentences in the article. — Maile ( talk) 23:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Consensus to keep with no further discussion in the past 5 days. (non-admin closure) Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 05:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Catherine Willows

Catherine Willows (  | 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)

Though there is a clear Reception section, I don't know if it warrants the character's notability. Just because an actor won an award for the portrayal of the character doesn't mean the character themselves are notable. A quick Google search doesn't give many sources to prove the character's notability. I may be wrong, thus this AfD nomination. Spinixster (chat!) 14:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep. Beyond those listed in the article, I found sources on this character in USA Today, Deadline, CBS, ET, CBR (also here), Screenrant, The Wrap, Collider, and Slate. And that is a preliminary search. I'd imagine there are even more sources out there on her, and think this search only scratches the surface. Historyday01 ( talk) 16:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep coverage meets GNG, what's more likely needed here is a plot summary trim or condensation, not deletion. Jclemens ( talk) 16:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I knew we'd eventually get to this considering the trim of CSI characters. However, Catherine actually has a lot of WP:SIGCOV per Historyday01's sources. Ideally, the article can be fixed a bit, but AfD requires a WP:BEFORE search. On whether the article reaches WP:GNG, well the plot summary can be trimmed to include character growth and any reliable recaps. Conyo14 ( talk) 04:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect. The reception section in the article is bad. Awards are for the actor, not character, then we have listicles / trivial recognition like "number 82 on Bravo's 100 Greatest TV Characters" and some pasing comments about her from some episode reviews. This takes me to the soruces found above (from Historyday01), who did not however provide any analysis nor suggest they did anything but WP:GOOGLEHITS report. USAToday is a WP:INTERVIEW with the actor about the character, which means issues with independence. deadline is a short piece about her coming back to the show. So-so. CBS reads like a press release. Sorry, I don't have time to review more sources, but they are not impressive, and I distincly note they are not scholarly but rather at celebrity media level or worse. It is onus on those voting keep to argue there is reliable SIGCOV, not throw a list of links and imply they may or may not be helpful here. This is bad AFD practice. The character may be notable, but nobody has estabilished this, the article does not do it, sources presented here that I reviewed are bad. For now, my vote is to redirect this to the list of characters. Ping me if someone wants to argue there are good sources here to improve this with and I'll reconsider my vote. But right now the sources found seem weak. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep on the grounds that large numbers of people are likely to want information on this character and come here looking for it. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 20:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    See WP:ITSUSEFUL Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Okay, I will. Okay, I did. That was neat. I observe that "It's useful/useless" applies to arguments for keeping/deleting unencyclopedic content, which this is not, and it advises participants to say why the information is useful, which I did. But thank you for keeping me on my toes. Good to stay sharp! Hm, but the fact that you said it might mean that my "why" wasn't clear enough for you. I will improve it! Catherine Willows was one of the most popular and long-lasting characters on what was in its day one of the most popular shows in the United States to the point at which the CSI effect changed the way our legal system works, and very large numbers of people will be interested in finding reliable, encyclopedically written, out-of-universe information about her and will come here to find it. To address what @ Spinixster: says, they'll come here specifically because Wikipedia is not Fandom. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 00:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Darkfrog24 I am very confused about what you said. Even if the series is very popular, if the character is not notable on their own, they do not warrant a page on Wikipedia. See WP:FICTION. Spinixster (chat!) 08:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Yes, but Jclemens and Conyo14 already showed that she is notable on her own. Once the article passes that threshold, we consider things like whether its existence serves Wikipedia's readership. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 21:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    They just agreed with what Historyday said, they did not show that she is notable on her own. I already did an assessment of the sources Historyday has provided below, which you have seen. Spinixster (chat!) 08:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Darkfrog24 Aside from what Piotrus said, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Fandom. Spinixster (chat!) 09:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional specific analysis of the proposed sources would be helpful. "A lot of people would like this" is not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. The resources linked by Historyday generally point towards constituting significant coverage. Admittedly, to go through the rest of the sources, the amount of independence does go back and forth throughout the list. The source of "The Wrap" is mainly an interview with the actor, and the "ET" source also includes an interview segment with the character's actress as well, meaning those portions are not completely independent. But even then, the rest of the sources do seem to talk about the character individually, and also create notability for Catherine on her own. The article also supplements this with the actress's thoughts during interviews, which can't be really used as "independent sources", but there's enough there in regards to independence throughout the segments focused solely on the character. As for the reception, it does seem appropriate to include accolades the actress won because the actress and character are effectively linked, so I would maintain it. Utopes ( talk / cont) 03:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The sources provided by Historyday01 above pass SIGCOV and she is notable enough to have her own article. The article just needs some fixing. FlutterDash344 ( talk) 03:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment As the nominator, I'd like to do an evaluation on the sources that Historyday provided myself.
    • USA Today, ET and TheWrap are interviews, and thus do not prove notability.
    • CBS is the actor's biography: notice how the url says "csi-vegas/cast/216685/" and CSI is a CBS show.
    • First ScreenRant article talks about the show, CSI: Vegas, rather than the character. Obviously, for a major character, she will be mentioned a lot in articles relating to the show, but that does not prove notability of the individual character ( MOS:TRIVIA, WP:NOTTVTROPES)
    • Second ScreenRant article talks about how the aforementioned spinoff of CSI has "wasted" the character. While it does focus on the character's storylines, I don't see how this proves that the character is notable. (also MOS:TRIVIA, WP:NOTTVTROPES)
    • CBR is similar to the second ScreenRant article.
    • Deadline and Collider are similar to the second ScreenRant article, but about the character's return to the new series.
    • Slate is an opinion piece about the character, which can be used for the Reception section, but other than that is not enough to prove the character's individual notability.
I would like to remind you that just because the show is notable doesn't mean that the major characters are. Just because there are multiple sources about the character's appearances on the show does not mean that the character is inherently notable; this is something I've learned myself. I want future voters to keep this in mind before making a decision. Spinixster (chat!) 10:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Excellent summary. I found a few hits on Google Scholar. I added one to the article and listed the others on the talk page. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 22:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the first article I cannot access without paying :(, the third article is a just a mention, the fourth one is also not significant coverage. However, the second article is quite interesting and at least passes a partial if not all the way. It comes from the Texas State Library as a peer-reviewed journal: Journal of Research on Women and Gender. Granted the entire article discusses crimes against women as portrayed by the show vs the crimes against men and then analyzes the issues, but it does use Catherine Willows attack against her as a prime example. Conyo14 ( talk) 23:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Thanks for using what access you have to evaluate the sources that I couldn't reach. I was expecting that they wouldn't all be hits. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 23:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Darkfrog24 Since it seems like you would be interested in improving the article, I would recommend checking out MOS:FICTION. In short, it should have more information about the real-life aspects of the character and less WP:CRUFT. The article also lacks references. If you need more examples, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters/Quality content. Spinixster (chat!) 08:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
It's not clear how you find this article to deviate from MOS:FICTION. Which issue causes you to believe that the article should be deleted? Right now, improvements should focus on keeping its head above water rather than perfecting the swim stroke. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 15:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Darkfrog24 Perhaps you should re-read what I said. I was just saying that because you were interested in improving the article, I did not say it was needed, but it would be preferred.
I did a WP:BEFORE search and many of the results were much like the sources Historyday has given, so I started an AfD debate to debate on whether or not the article is notable. I have said in the nomination that I may be wrong, I never said I was correct. Spinixster (chat!) 15:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

AS3959

AS3959 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional analysis of the subject's notability, in light of the references proposed, would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete neither of the sources provided above meet WP:SIGCOV. Fails GNG. LibStar ( talk) 03:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The sources above do not meet SIGCOV. It also fails WP:GNG. FlutterDash344 ( talk) 03:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The article could also be titled "Building to reduce fire hazards in areas prone to brush fires in Australia", but AS3959 is a good shortcut for that and is recognized by people working in construction and fire prevention in Australia. I think the references are adequate. There are many articles on other national and international standards as well as on the bodies that create these standards. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 15:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a reason for keeping. LibStar ( talk) 04:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. The consensus of participants is that sources in the article and in this discussion are sufficient to establish GNG and this article should be Kept. Liz Read! Talk! 00:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Foundation for Universal Responsibility of His Holiness the Dalai Lama

Foundation for Universal Responsibility of His Holiness the Dalai Lama (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails to show how it meets WP:NORG of the four references presented, 1 is a blog and another is the orgs own website. A before search only came up with unreliable sources such as linkedin, youtube and instragam and database sources and non-independent sources. Lavalizard101 ( talk) 13:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Pakistan, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. Lavalizard101 ( talk) 13:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, this is the major peace foundation funded by the Nobel Peace Prize money awarded the Dalai Lama. Notable per WP:COMMONSENSE, and hopefully additional sources will be added. Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    See WP:NOCOMMON. Lavalizard101 ( talk) 14:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, there are plenty of mentions in books, which are potential sources. Nominator does not appear to have done a search for sources before nominating the article for deletion. Skyerise ( talk) 14:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Most of those book sources are by Rajiv Mehrotra, the secretary of the organisation or the Dalai Lama thus not independent as required for WP:NORG, the rest are either the foundation or its members used as sources ( example). Lavalizard101 ( talk) 14:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The foundation has received significant coverage in at least three, independent, reliable sources: [68], [69], [70]. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 21:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I've expanded the article using these sources. Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 23:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I cannot fully review your source 1 and 2 as those books aren't displaying previews for me, however the search inside function is showing for book 1 that the organisations name appears 3 times on unidentified pages and the text that is displaying around said appearances is not helpful in determining whether the text is SIGCOV about the organisaiton or whether this is just mentions. Same thing for source two but with 2 appearances of the organisations name one of which is reference, however the source is used for the criticism and other coverage in the article so may be more in depth then I can tell from what little is viewable by me. Source 3 is the only source I can fully review as it is a journal paper that is free to download. The coverage in source 3 about the foundation is focused on the WISCOMP so would meet SIGCOV. So in total sources 1 and 2 I have not fully reviewed and source 3 is SIGCOV. Lavalizard101 ( talk) 18:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I was able to access versions through my university. Source 1 has around a page of coverage as part of an encyclopedic listing of various organizations. Source 2 is a book chapter discussing activism by Nobel laureates. The foundation is mentioned in various places. The criticism information I added comes from a section of around 3 pages just on this organization. Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 16:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Significant coverage from reliable sources exist. Editorkamran ( talk) 07:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I have just opened an SPI into two brand new accounts that appeared at the article to remove criticism coverage. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Peacebuildera. Lavalizard101 ( talk) 17:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to 14th Dalai Lama. Notability cannot be inherited, and the sources don't even remotely meet the standard for WP:CORP in terms of significant/exclusive coverage of the organization. Steven Walling •  talk 01:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 01:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 05:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This may have been stated by the 14th Dalai Lama, but the work will continue after he's gone. The Carter Center is the closest American parallel that I can think of. It's specific purpose for existence is to advance human rights and alleviate human suffering. After both President Carter and Rosalynn Carter are dead, the Carter Center will carry on with the work they started. The center itself will not lose any notability, because the notability is in the work of the center. The 14th Dalai Lama is likely to be the last Dalai Lama, at least that's what he's said. The work of the Foundation for Universal Responsibility of His Holiness the Dalai Lama will continue with the same name. — Maile ( talk) 20:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - GNG is met, and the article is notable; I am in favour of keeping the article instead of merging. Ekdalian ( talk) 07:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Remi, Nobody's Girl

Remi, Nobody's Girl (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced since article creation, a major tenet of Wikipedia is Verification. This fails. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Anime and manga, Japan, and France. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep No BEFORE attempted. Verifiability is only failed if someone has tried to find references and cannot. Jclemens ( talk) 22:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete or merge/redirect to Nobody's Boy: Remi. I did a BEFORE and I am not seeing anything outside confirmation that yes, such an anime existed. Japanese article is longer but it doesn't seem to have any information on reception, awards, etc. That said, sources may exist in Japanese - but that's not an argument for keeping, just a speculation. I'd like to see this saved - ping me if sources are found and I'll behappy to reconsider my vote. I'll note that the Boy original is pretty poor too (for determining notability), but the very fact it got several remakes including the one nominated here suggests there is a notable topic here. But it is possible, yes, that not every remake needs a stand-alone article (that said, the original anime is itself an adaptation of the French novel, see Sans_Famille#Film_and_television, so it is possible that what is notable is the original novel but not the animes...). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: It looks like this is also called Remi: A Child Without a Home in English. (At least, that's the title it's given in The Anime Encyclopedia, 3rd Revised Edition, according to Google Books. That's one decent source for a Japanese programme from the early days of the internet. There will surely be others in Japanese and/or offline, so I suspect this is notable. Josh Milburn ( talk) 18:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep 11 interwikis plus a sizeable Japanese article mentioning offshot media - looks sufficiently notable to me, considering this didn't originate in the English-speaking sphere. – sgeureka t• c 12:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Sgeureka I often agree with you but this is just a wish that WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES. I hope so, too, but we need to show those sources, and the Japanese articles is poorly referenced, I feel. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I am not actually claiming/expecting there to be sources for development/reception like usual, but I regard the existance of several media (26 TV episodes plus 8 Japanese ISBN) noteworthy - which we can source. [71] [72] [73] etc. This is IMO not much different to the List of Lucky Luke albums situation - barely nor no individual notability, and obviously people look this up internationally (per the interwikis), so it's IMO keep- and mention-worthy as long as it's kept to one noncrufty page. – sgeureka t• c – sgeureka t• c 11:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here and I'm not yet ready to close this as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to Nobody's Boy: Remi: I disagree with the sentiment of the nomination (we shouldn't be deleting articles just b/c they're unreferenced) but searches in English and Japanese (via machine translation) doesn't uncover anything useful. Ping me if sources are found. CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE 05:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per Piotrus. There don't appear to be reliable sources. There is a good redirect target per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker ( talk) 14:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I found a few sources:
In addition, there are some plausible sources from the NDL Digital Collections but there is only snippet view so I'm not sure. All that combined with the Anime Encyclopedia source it should be enough. Courtesy ping @ Piotrus: and @ ClydeFranklin: per their request. Jumpytoo Talk 18:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Jumpytoo This is very appreciated. Sadly, I am not able to access/translate those sources - can you elaborate on how they meet WP:SIGCOV and wP:RS? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The first source has the third chapter be dedicated to this work and one other work (the link provides the table of contents, and there is also this book review which correlates), and the second source has around half a page describing the airing history behind it, on how it replaced an anime that got cancelled because it was garbage, and how this anime also got canned pretty quickly because it was also unpopular.
The NDL Digital collections also show a few sources with potential but I can't read them, for example one of them has the following available as snippet (Google translated): "The main character of the last " Homeless Remi " is the same as the original...", and I presume it talks more about the series in the full text which is not visible. Jumpytoo Talk 07:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some actual analysis of the proposed references would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, kudos to Jumpytoo per sources above. Both are significant coverage and definitely reliable. The book was published by Yamakawa Shuppansha (( ja), which is a well-established academic publisher, and Yūichi Morioka ( ja) is an Osaka University professor emeritus. Ariko Kawabata ( ja), the journal essay's author, is also a notable academic. Given the pre-Internet era subject and the usual difficulties in looking for Japanese sources, I am surprised that there is so much online. Furthermore, it is quite obvious there is more offline. Cavarrone 08:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Sources provided by Jumpy should be added to the article by someone with access to them. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 14:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the sources found. I also want to remind future nominators in general to follow WP:BEFORE. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 13:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Paco Lala's

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

No evidence of notability. Tagged for additional sources in 2011, but no improvements were made. Could also be redirected to Cada mañana where the subject is mentioned, though I personally prefer deletion. CycloneYoris talk! 00:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as non-notable. Fails WP:ENT and the one source only makes a passing mention as a picture-caption and doesn't demonstrate notability. Utopes ( talk / cont) 04:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment found a couple of articles ( [74], [75]) about some legal troubles he has been having; not sure if that is enough to establish notability. I also don't know anything about the reliability of that second publication (Univision I presume is reliable). WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 22:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I checked these sources, and while it talks about the problems he was facing, from my point of view this does not establish notability as an entertainer/TV personality. While Univision I'd agree seems to be a reliable source on its own right, it talks mainly about the scandal and not about Paco Lala's career. Neither of those two links back up Paco Lalas' notability, nor can I find reliable sources that do, so the background of "panelist on one show" does not seem to be enough. Utopes ( talk / cont) 02:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails GNG, tagged for sources for too long; clearly cannot be considered as a notable. Ekdalian ( talk) 07:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_August_29&oldid=1174082330"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 28 August 30 >

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 merge‎ to Sext. Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Diurnum

Diurnum (  | 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 will do better as a dictionary definition at Wiktionary than a permanent stub with no citations here. An online search reveals this topic does not have enough in-depth coverage to warrant a Wikipedia page. Bremps ... 23:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗ plicit 01:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Milun Tesovic

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. All but perhaps one reference fail WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 15:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep Some coverage [4], second is a trivial mention [5] Oaktree b ( talk) 15:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Significant coverage in a couple of sources and brief coverage in a few others. -- Griboski ( talk) 02:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗ plicit 01:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Sam Taylor (producer)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Weak keep as well as the AllMusic staff bio referenced in the article the HoustonPress piece archived here is significant coverage imv, Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 15:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Cyprus women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Antria Kirkini

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

Redirect to List of Cyprus women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least three caps for the Cyprus women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 23:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Truimali Ramírez

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

The subject has earned at least five caps for the Honduras women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 23:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete (or Redirect if applicable). Shan't contest this. Subject isn't notable. Danish Ranger ( talk) 00:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Marcela Santos

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

The subject has earned at least one cap for the Honduras women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 23:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Urbana, North Dakota

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

Another grain elevator by the tracks, and there is also a very old school building, but no town. And according to Origins of North Dakota Place Names, that was always the case: the station was built and got a post office, and a town was platted, but nothing ever came of it. So just another NN rail spot.c Mangoe ( talk) 21:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment. From that source referenced in nom, it sounds like a potential redirect/merge could happen, though I don't know what the right target is. There's value in covering the history of the railroads in the United States in a variety of different ways, and a list of verifiable defunct stops that had infrastructure is a nice idea, perhaps broken out by state or line. — siro χ o 22:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:V / WP:GEOLAND given the lack of any reliable sources to verify the subject's existence. There isn't any point in a merge, the article just says that the subject is an unincorporated community which we don't think is true. Hut 8.5 07:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Urbana, Mangoe if there is sufficient evidence these were once named places why not just redirect to the township or county (probably the county) without an Afd? fiveby( zero) 17:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I have opposed this sort of redirect because we end up with lists within these articles which aren't true (that is, list of "communities") or the redirects go to places that don't tell you about this place. Mangoe ( talk) 23:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
That makes sense, useless to redirect the reader if there is no county history section mentioning the place, and worse than useless to imply it's an existing community. fiveby( zero) 04:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019. Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Hobbs, New Mexico party shooting

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

Only WP:ROUTINE coverage of this crime; nothing particularly notable about this shooting. Elli ( talk | contribs) 21:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and New Mexico. Elli ( talk | contribs) 21:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • delete, depressingly. A routine crime of no lasting impact other than to the victims, their friends, and their families. Mangoe ( talk) 21:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Another mass shooting in America? That's a daily occurrence. The only notable thing is that the arrested man was framed by the detective, who is related to other, more likely suspects. Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply

List of lone wolf terrorist attacks

List of lone wolf terrorist attacks (  | 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)

Arbitrary and unsupported selection criteria. To quote Lone wolf attack: "The term lone actor or lone wolf is not a legal term or a social science concept. It is an ill-defined and academically contested construct, manufactured by the media and by radical political actors." Groupthink ( talk) 20:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Lists. Groupthink ( talk) 20:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Very tough call. A couple quick search demonstrate that this very clearly meets WP:NLIST as despite the lack of an academic consensus, various reliable media discusses the subject as a group extremely often, often giving multiple examples. But the inclusion criteria seems too subjective right now. We'll clearly need to remove all unreferenced entries. But, given the concerns the nomination brought up, I do not think a single reference for each would suffice -- we'd need to see a few reliable sources describing an attack as such before adding it. Given the complexity of the underlying issue and the risk of DUE weight issues in the list, I think it's in violation of NPOV to keep this list in it's current state, so I'll say weak delete. I'm not sure at this time what a sufficient cleanup would look like, but there's a hypothetical version of this list that could be kept. — siro χ o 00:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    The only hypothetical version I can think of would be, like you pointed out, "List of terrorist attacks the media calls 'lone wolf'", which would be granular to a silly degree. Groupthink ( talk) 02:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 01:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep While I have no disrespect to the Anti-Defamation League or any of it's contributors, the statement the nominator seems to be pulling from the lone wolf attack article seems to be from a weekly ADL opinion(?) piece from over 20 years ago, so I'm not sure that "Lone wolf" can be declared as this completely meaningless term simply from that (and in fact, it's use in the Lone Wolf Attack article seems to be conferring a bit more 'objectivity' to that quote that it should actually have). Other, somewhat more academic takes on the subject as found here seem to be well defined and certainly not "manufactured by the media or a radical political actor". Obviously there may be some discourse regarding what qualifies as "direct leadership" or "direct outside command", but I feel that that is rather weak grounds to delete an otherwise 'fine' list which serves a good and unique purpose. Essentially, I both do not find the concept to be "ill defined" enough to warrant deletion, and I also do not feel that deletion is warranted to an otherwise useful list simply because some users or editors may disagree with the placement / omission of a couple given cases. A MINOTAUR ( talk) 03:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Meaningless term? No. But is it an "unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources" term? Also no. However it is a term used to excuse and whitewash certain types of terrorism, such as Christian terrorism, that the western world is uncomfortable with. Groupthink ( talk) 03:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I... do not quite agree with you here. I appreciate what you are saying - and I agree that it is best to not excuse/"whitewash" any forms of terrorism, but I don't seem to understand how this list does either of those things. This list existing does not stop a list called "List of terrorist attacks motivated by Christian beliefs" from existing (something else might, I'm not sure, but this list won't, and in fact Category:Christian terrorism in the United States already seems to partially serve this function). So your reason for deletion seems to be one more of personal conviction and passion about the subject matter rather than the actual guidelines and merits of article preservation/deletion. A MINOTAUR ( talk) 03:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I have no personal conviction or passion about the subject matter per se. My concerns are about POV pushing and loaded language. "Lone wolf terrorist attack" is a concept which is so flawed as to be untenable. Terrorist attacks cannot and do not happen in a vacuum. Terrorism is explicitly tied to politics and/or ideology by definition. Even setting that aside, what could an objective, non-arbitrary, verifiable gatekeeping principle be for deciding what is or is not a "lone wolf" attack? Groupthink ( talk) 04:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    AfD is not really the place to engage in a philosophical debate, so I will only again point to the DOJ PDF which itself outlines (in my view) a perfectly fine, reasonable, and objective (enough) definition for the term "Lone wolf" in the context of "lone wolf terrorist attack". Is there some degree of subjectivity? Of course, the definition is in many way a guideline, just as we editors follow guidelines to determine what articles get kept. Simply because there is potential for disagreement in the term does not de-legitimize any use of it.
    At risk of crowding the discussion this will likely be my last reply, though again I feel that your personal opposition to the term (or even the idea of such a term) is perhaps biasing your position here. The Lone wolf attack article is itself rather flawed (and largely created by one user, apparently a criminology student), though as we are not here for that article discussion regarding it is somewhat lost here. I do appreciate the discussion. A MINOTAUR ( talk) 04:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I appreciate the discussion as well. We all have our biases: I hate big lists and I cannot lie. But I'll have to agree to disagree with you that my [[Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria|selection criteria]] concerns constitute a bias, or at least an unfair bias as I feel you're implying. Groupthink ( talk) 07:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Addendum:Attached are several other references which include definitions of and 'credible discussion' of "lone wolf" attacks, from sources such as the Hauge, the European Comission, and various academic sources. I do not think it's our place as Wikipedians to try to "overrule" these organizations by making our own conclusions regarding the validity of the term, or simply out of Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT - adjacent perspectives. It is a clearly used term by a vast number of governments, academic institutions, and NGOs across the world. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] A MINOTAUR ( talk) 16:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Groupthink; it's a meaningless term and widely used to whitewash ubiquitous-but-only-in-the-US mass shootings, Christian terrorism and the rise of 21st century fascism and white nationalism in the US. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 14:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The article needs a lede that clearly defines lone wolf. Such a definition is not difficult to find in recent literature, and the emphasis on disagreements over the term appear to be WP:UNDUE. Otherwise, the list is relevant and encyclopedic (or as encylopaedic as a List can be, but I gave up on that battle years back). The nomination does feel very much within WP:IDONTLIKEIT, especially with a red-flag, patently untrue assertion that the term was manufactured by the media and by radical political actors. The use of the term to describe a person who commits a crime or nefarious act alone, not as part of a group, community or other affinity, dates to Tillotson in 1909. It saw significant use in the sixties (in US and AUS especially if I recall correctly) to describe those who abandoned non-violent groups to take direct action, usually in the form of a terrorist attack. Cheers Last1in ( talk) 17:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    As stated above, "manufactured by the media and by radical political actors" is not my language, it's language from the Lone wolf attack article. Groupthink ( talk) 18:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the term and idea is commonly discussed in academic sources per google scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C24&q=Lone+wolf&btnG= Hardyplants ( talk) 07:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. Blurring and media coverage of the term in our case is acceptable: this list, albeit not strict, is of great value to various kinds of researchers. Suitskvarts ( talk) 09:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep There are multiple sources that discuss this topic. A BEFORE search also shows a lot of results. FlutterDash344 ( talk) 21:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per others, but mostly on WP:N which I believe this list covers. I think the nom's rationale is on-point about media hyping a word that usually describes a "social outcast" rather academic sources that describe terrorists who act alone. If anything, the page can be moved to something more appropriate, but there are enough sources where this list can exist. Conyo14 ( talk) 20:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete It seems to violate WP:NPOV in it's current state to me. It seems that there is some WP:DUE concerns with some of the entries. It seems fairly dicey to me whether this meets the criteria or not. But for the aforementioned reasons. I am going to say weak delete. Seawolf35 ( talk) 01:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Richard Moser

Richard Moser (  | 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 fictional character in Austrian television series Inspector Rex. I couldn't find significant independent coverage of him, so I believe he does not warrant his own article per the General notability guideline. HenryMP02 ( talk) 21:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Checking the main Inspector Rex article, it seems at a glance that all relevant info is already covered there, and I can't find much of anything else. Pokelego999 ( talk) 22:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. In light of sources added and brought up here. Liz Read! Talk! 03:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Faruk Kaymakcı

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

WP:BLP of a diplomat and civil servant, not properly referenced as passing notability criteria. As always, neither diplomats nor civil servants are "inherently" notable just because they exist -- for both roles, notability hinges on showing a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage about their work in media and/or books, to demonstrate that their work has made them the subject of significant third-party attention to establish its significance. But the referencing here is entirely to content self-published by his own employers and other directly affiliated organizations, with not a shred of GNG-worthy media coverage shown at all. Bearcat ( talk) 14:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Turkey. Bearcat ( talk) 14:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Appears to be a non-notable diplomat who fails to meet WP:BIO or WP:NPOL. Hey man im josh ( talk) 16:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - the subject was until recently Turkey's Deputy Foreign Minister and EU ambassador. There are hundreds of news articles referencing him to represent Turkey's official view on various geopolitical issues. Here is a biographical overview from the College of Europe. Should easily meet WP:NPOL in my opinion. - Indefensible ( talk) 17:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep For example https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/no-european-security-without-turkiye-deputy-eu-minister-179536 - as far as I know Hürriyet Daily News has not (yet?) been added to the list of unreliable sources. Chidgk1 ( talk) 13:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I have cited more sources to the subject albeit some are written in Turkish. And would as well ask admins to consider which diplomatic portfolios should be considered on the WP:NPOL. A deputy foreign minister should easily pass. My 2cents and kind regards. Wikipractitioner ( talk) 15:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    There's a complexity here because "foreign minister" is used differently across different countries. In parliamentary systems a "Minister" or "Deputy Minister" is a member of a national/state parliament (so automatically satisfying NPOL); in presidential systems the equivalent is an appointed position. In both cases, Ministers would normally be members of cabinet, membership of which would satisfy NPOL. However, there are some countries where not all ministries are cabinet level and certainly deputy ministers do not automatically hold cabinet-level positions. In the case of Turkey, the Foreign Minister is a Presidential appointment and there are at present four deputy foreign ministers. Three of the deputy foreign ministers are career foreign service professionals (ie civil servants) and one appears to be an AKP apparatchik. Given this, I would not consider a Turkish deputy foreign minister presumptively notable under NPOL. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 01:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - He is notable enough due to his role as ambassador of Turkey. Egeymi ( talk) 18:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Other than the scores of Turkish sources available, here's some European pieces: The Brussels Times, Balkan Insight, "Significantly, the new Turkish ambassador to Brussels is Faruk Kaymakci, probably the ablest EU specialist in the foreign ministry" Oxford Analytica Expert Briefings. Sources available that show a passing of the GNG/BASIC. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 23:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Big Bear Lake, California. Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Big Bear Grizzly

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, United States of America, and California. UtherSRG (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to Big Bear Lake, California. This paper dates back to 1941, and is clearly the newspaper of record for the city. IAR, I do not like deleting such articles, since we are likely to cite them in coverage of topics relating to the city. That said, I really struggled to find sources. There is a paragraph on the newspaper's name and basic details in this book on newspaper names, but that's not quite WP:SIGCOV. There is coverage of ownership change here, but it only mentions the newspaper once as part of a group, so that doesn't count either. This 1978 article (continued here) talks about someone being allegedly fired because of the newspaper's reporting, but there's nothing we'd use it for in the article per WP:NOTNEWS, so it seems like it'd be cheating a bit to try to use it for notability. There is almost surely significant coverage in Big Bear: Bearly Remembered, a 319-page history of the city, but I haven't been able to access it ( offline sources count, if they can be proved to exist). The best bet for saving this would be to get access to that book, and to hope it leads to a second source somewhere.
    Taking stock of all that, what we have is a topic that's notable in the generic, non-jargon sense, but where the sourcing doesn't quite add up to Wikipedia notability — yet, from what we can access online. The paper also clearly deserves coverage in the city's article (not mentioned there currently, but it's standard practice to cover news organizations in city articles; also keep in mind that, with a population of 5,000 people, the due bar is not high). These factors make it very ripe for merging as an ATD. {{u| Sdkb}}  talk 18:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I found three sources that provide information on this newspaper and added two of them to the article. See talk page. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 20:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Those look like unreliable database entries to me. {{u| Sdkb}}  talk 23:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Agree with Sdkb's asessment above. Totnes Times was another recent similar merge. Willing to change to keep if SIGCOV is found. — siro χ o 23:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Breast Cancer Network Australia

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Weak keep, the Age and Herald Sun articles combine to meet WP:SIRS. I fixed the broken link to the latter article which is still online but had gone stale. WilsonP NYC ( talk) 17:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Worth more consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - The "Tagged for notability since 2010" is only because nobody bothered to remove the tags, or had no idea they should have. This article has improved considerably since then. I have removed the 13-year-old tags. Wikipedia in general is like a site-wide litter path of such tagged articles that were improved, but nobody removed the old out-of-date tags. Looking through the online site, the links, information and research it offers makes it somewhat equal in outreach to the online American Cancer Society site. Pretty important links and information. — Maile ( talk) 00:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to St Hugh's College, Oxford. Liz Read! Talk! 21:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

St Hugh's Boat Club

AfDs for this article:
St Hugh's Boat Club (  | 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)

Listing since a G4 was declined due to the information added on Weiss (I assume). From a WP:BEFORE, not much has changed has changed since the last AfD. I'm not seeing any WP:SIGCOV on the club itself. The information of Weiss doesn't make the club itself notable. Schminnte ( talk • contribs) 16:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and England. Schminnte ( talk • contribs) 16:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to the St. Hugh College article. Not notable without the context of the school. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    It is suggested that this article should not be deleted for the following reasons:
    1. SHBC alumni include American Olympic rower Anders Weiss who has his own Wikipedia page.
    2. It is extremely common for Oxford college boat clubs to have their own Wikipedia page at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University_Rowing_Clubs
    3. It is suggested that all Oxford college boat clubs should be included to make Wikipedia more comprehensive.
    4. Members of SHBC compete in the world-famous Oxford vs Cambridge boat race with a television audience of ~6 million. See for example the 1982 race at /info/en/?search=The_Boat_Race_1982 where Boris Rankov represented St Hugh's with a record-breaking fifth race, later recognised by Guinness World Records. Oxonwiki ( talk) 11:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Point 1 doesn't mean we should have an article for the club, per WP:NOTINHERITED. Point 2 is just WP:OSE. Point 3 doesn't comply with the need for them to be notable, articles should only be created if notable. Point 4 is again WP:NOTINHERITED. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 11:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Please re-read the article on St Hugh's Boat Club. I have added more information regarding the Club's history and the awards it has won.
    Most notable change is the fact that St Hugh's Women First VIII were the first and only women's crew to successfully bump a men's crew (magdalen m4) during the 1975 Summer Eights. This event significantly contributed to the creation of Women divisions for all subsequent Summer Eights (1976 onwards) and Torpids (1978 onwards).
    Additionally, the St Hugh's Women's Eight also won the College Div B in the first ever Henley Women's Regatta in 1988, another notable achievement by the club. Whyartlife ( talk) 17:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I will note here that there is still no significant coverage of the club. The bulk of the references added are either for alumni ( WP:NOTINHERITED) or published by St Hugh's. As there is no WP:SNG for rowing this article has to meet WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (my emphasis). I'm still not seeing that. Schminnte ( talk • contribs) 17:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Before I address your points, may I disclose that I am not a paid editor and am not being paid to edit the St Hugh's article. I do however am connected to the Boat Club as I am a member of the club and have participated/represented the club in recent events. As a result, I am trying to show how our club has a rich and notable history, especially regarding women's rowing at Oxford.
    Regarding your point about significant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject - The Times has mentioned St Hugh's Boat Club multiple times during their coverage of the Eights Week, most notably during the years 1975, 1982-84. You can find reference to this at this website: http://eodg.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/dudhia/rowing/bumps/e1982/ which is an archive of all Summer Eights and Torpids Bump charts reconstructed by Anu Dudhia, who has stated that majority of the information for the years 1900-1995 came from " the bumps charts printed in The Times newspapers". This is referenced on the Bump Index website here: http://eodg.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/dudhia/rowing/bumps/.
    Additionally, the St Hugh's Boat Club also produced the Women's crew which won at the first Henley Women's regatta in 1988 in the College Eights Division B. This can be proven by looking at the HWR results archive website: https://hwr.org.uk/results-archive/
    I hope this is sufficient information proving why the Boatclub has notable history, seeing as there is proof showing that St Hugh's Boat Club women have been rowing even before women's rowing was introduced to the Olympics in 1976. This can be seen here: http://eodg.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/dudhia/rowing/bumps/e1975/ Whyartlife ( talk) 08:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Your first point is the The Times has mentioned the club. If you will read our guidelines on significant coverage, you'll find that a mere mention is not enough: we need coverage on the club, not mentions. As for your other points, unfortunately these mean nothing since Wikipedia does not have a special notability guideline for rowing so we must use the general guideline, and we are still lacking that crucial significant coverage that would pass that. Schminnte ( talk • contribs) 10:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    The Times has covered the club throughout multiple days as the Eights Week as proceeded. You can go on the site I cited previously and see for yourself. As per the notability guidelines, significant coverage doesn’t need the source covering the topic to be the main topic. The Times doesn’t target the club for its main coverage, that is true. The main coverage target is Eights Week/Torpids, but in doing so it does cover the Club and its performance during the events and how the club won Headship. Winning the Eights Week is a significant and notable achievement as Eights Week itself is a notable competition seeing as it has its own article on wikipedia. There is also coverage by the Daily Telegraph alongside the Times. Additionally, there is no original research being conducted to verify this, only a few google searches. As far as I can see, this should be meeting Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines. Whyartlife ( talk) 08:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Please note that The Times article from 1983 contained in the below website provides significant coverage for the club in a reputable newspaper:
    https://www.sutori.com/story/shbc-a-history--et3i3ZN8NKqrxq2irj2SLSi3?fbclid=IwAR2haOjUMrk4M7tpZ_B_N2ewC9XWESwex2GT6VvqzP1foLMpGw924x6ILx0 Oxonwiki ( talk) 01:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect not notable enough for an independent article, doesn't look like it would meet WP:GNG. Also, please protect the redirect to stop this being recreated again. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 11:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Additionally sources have been added to the article which hopefully should meet WP:GNG requirements. Whyartlife ( talk) 17:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Please note that The Times article from 1983 contained in the below website provides significant coverage for the club in a reputable newspaper:
    https://www.sutori.com/story/shbc-a-history--et3i3ZN8NKqrxq2irj2SLSi3?fbclid=IwAR2haOjUMrk4M7tpZ_B_N2ewC9XWESwex2GT6VvqzP1foLMpGw924x6ILx0 Oxonwiki ( talk) 01:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    How can you be sure that this was published in The Times? I doubt "St Hugh's DevSec" is an independent source. Schminnte ( talk • contribs) 07:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Extremely important article. Boat Clubs mean a lot in Oxford. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:152:4F80:CF80:79FB:D1BD:DED0:D0BD ( talk) 16:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply

That's not really how AFD, nor how Wikipedia works. Is your claim verifiable by Wikipedia:Reliable sources (see the lead section)? This deletion discussion is about whether the topic is notable in terms of Wikipedia or not. Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process might be able to help you. NotAGenious ( talk) 16:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep Disclosure, I am a current member of the St Hugh's Boat Club and have conducted research and added more relevant information regarding the club's history which should hopefully meet all requirements. Additionally, I am new to editing in Wikipedia so not fully up to speed regarding most of the short-forms and conduct, so please do bear with me. I do have a vested interest in keeping the article and have presented more data so a more informed decision can occur. Whyartlife ( talk) 17:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)— Whyartlife ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as a lot of editing has occurred on this article since nomination, please evaluate its current condition.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Merge: fails GNG, as most Oxford boat club articles probably do. There's no significant coverage from sources independent of St Hugh's. Those interested in the history might want to start their own wiki on Oxford sports and societies, but Wikipedia isn't that place. — Bilorv ( talk) 23:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - every other Oxford college boat club appears to have a page, including e.g. St Benet's Hall and Regent's Park. I don't see the point of deleting one and being inconsistent. Either have articles for them all, or have none and delete the lot.

(Just on another note - shouldn't it be moved to 'St Hugh's College Boat Club'?) FieldOfWheat ( talk) 15:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi @ FieldOfWheat, the existence of other articles is generally seen as a poor arguement for both deleting or keeping an article. If you have concerns about the notability of other articles, then that should be voiced in discussions concerning those articles. All the best, Schminnte ( talk • contribs) 16:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Seems you have an agenda. Every time someone puts an argument for keeping this page, up you pop to try and void it. I have no concerns whatsoever about the notability of other articles - if every other Oxford boat club (indeed every other Oxbridge boat club) is notable enough to deserve a page (as they all are), so does St Hugh's.
Leave it alone, and don't question me about keeping this page, or I might ask you why you're so keen to delete it.
FieldOfWheat ( talk) 19:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I can assure you that I have no agenda here: please don't cast aspersions. I'm merely trying to explain the policies on which we should base rationales in these discussions. You (and other editors in this discussion) are new to AfD so I thought explaining and responding to these points would be helpful and useful. Regardless, I will not be replying to any more of these points, even if I feel it will help. Thanks, Schminnte ( talk • contribs) 20:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between a Redirect/Merge to St Hugh's College, Oxford and Keeping the article. I asked in the first relist if there could be some evaluation on the work to improve this article since the nomination but it seems like most opinion has been about whether or not Wikipedia should have articles on this subject, with limited discussion on the current state of this article and its sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Source assessment table. Based on sources in the article, redirect/merge seems reasonable, but I haven't sought out more sources so I won't bold a !vote. — siro χ o 04:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
British Rowing [11] ? Yes No address, location etc ✘ No
Wood, Tessa [12] No school publication reporting on school subject ? Yes ✘ No
facebook ? No WP:UGC ? ✘ No
Sutori [13] ? No UGC Yes ✘ No
St. Hugh's College Chronicle (all of them) No school publication reporting on school ? ? ✘ No
thames.me.uk (both) ? ? No database entry for a few specific races ✘ No
eodg.atm.ox.ac.uk (both) ? ? No several database entries over time for specific races ✘ No
[14] Henley Women's Regatta ? Yes No database entries on races ✘ No
[15]Thames Ditton Regatta ? Yes No database entry ✘ No
Goodbody, John [16] Yes Yes No no mention of subject ✘ No
"Good luck to Anders Weiss!" No school publication ? ? ✘ No
The American [17] No entirely an interview with member ? No ✘ No
Sam Marsden [18] Yes Yes No no mention of subject ✘ No
"BBC investigated ..." [19] ? ? No passing mention ✘ No
Guiness [20] Yes Yes No no mention ✘ No
Rachel Quarrell [21] Yes Yes No no mention ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
  • Merge to college article pro tem - Oxford colleges have always given rise to lots of writing and I've no doubt that it would be possible with time to pull together enough independent sourcing to support a separate article. It would be a shame to lose this content in the meantime. Ingratis ( talk) 08:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. There is continuing opposition to merging this material, but a clear consensus that this is not an appropriate article subject. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology

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

There are no secondary sources that meaningfully discuss this website. This article has lacked sources for over a decade. The edit that reverted the proposed deletion contained an admission that the reverter was not aware of any relevant secondary sources. The fact that a source is cited does not make it notable. The only potential target for a redirect does not mention this article's subject, so a redirect is unwarrented. ― Susmuffin  Talk 17:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose: I agree that secondary sources about the actual encyclopedia are not easily found (I have not encountered any). But secondary sources citing articles within the encyclopedia are easily found (any search on Google Books demonstrates this). Besides, the notability criteria for this should for WP:NB (which is "instructive by analogy"), and is therefore deemed a reliable source as a widely cited academic work. — Caorongjin 💬 18:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: The proper answer to a lack of secondary sources isn't to come up with some other justification. It's that an article on this subject cannot be sustained, and I'm somewhat startled at hearing the article creator admit that there never were any valid secondary sources. A citation to an article within this encyclopedia is a WP:NOTINHERITED issue. Ravenswing 06:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    And as that section reads: "four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances". What I am suggesting is inherited notability as a book, that is highly cited, per WP:TEXTBOOK (as suggested below by @ A. B.. — Caorongjin 💬 16:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Question: might this book qualify under WP:TEXTBOOK?
— A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 13:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Couldn't find any mentions in RSes and doesn't meet any of the criteria at WP:NBOOK. It also doesn't appear to meet WP:TEXTBOOKS as it hasn't been published by a university press or gone through the associated peer review, I haven't seen any evidence that the website is widely cited in academia or the media, there are no sources to establish how influential it has been, and it has not been the subject of study in any educational institutions. Shapeyness ( talk) 13:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Modern Theology (journal), which is the primary source of writers for this work. Not notable, but quite possibly noteworthy. BD2412 T 04:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    It seems like that link was made in error, as I could not find any evidence of a relationship between the project and the journal. ― Susmuffin  Talk 03:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Wesley J. Wildman, rather Wesley Wildman. Oppose merge to Modern Theology (journal), which I don't think is actually connected, rather a set of seminars at Boston University of a similar name is connected to the journal. I've deleted the wikilink to Modern Theology (journal) from the article. -- Jahaza ( talk) 21:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
corrected as per Liz's note that Wesley J. Wildman is a redirect.-- Jahaza ( talk) 19:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus and two different Merge targets suggested (although Wesley J. Wildman isn't a viable one because it is a redirect)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see whether there is support for a Merge or Redirect to Wesley Wildman as there is opposition to a Merge to Modern Theology.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - per Ravenswing. A lack of secondary sources is and should always be a hard stop. - car chasm ( talk) 07:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Middleville, Michigan. Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Camp Manitou-Lin

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Canberra Choral Society

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NBAND, WP:NORG, and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Organizations, and Australia. UtherSRG (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Plenty of news coverage about this group, both local and national: Limelight [22] [23], Australian Broadcasting Corporation [24], Canberra Times [25]. There is also the book Canberra Choral Society: A Capital Choir for a Capital City ISBN  9780958155304, a commemorative history book published by a small non-fiction press, but it has been cited in a few scholarly articles. I can provide more sources if needed. Why? I Ask ( talk) 20:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Sources listed above (Limelight, Canberra Times) book appear to confirm WP:NBAND#C1. I couldn't get a glimpse of the listed book, so for my own certainty I found SIGCOV in a different book as well [26]. — siro χ o 05:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. WP:NAUTHOR is met and WP:PROF#C1 is arguably met even if WP:PROF#C5 is not. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC) ( non-admin closure) ‎ reply

Michael Fitzgerald (psychiatrist)

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

Appears to fail WP:PROF. The closest I can come is his being the "Henry Marsh Professor of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at Trinity College, Dublin" (1996-2010), except no one can find any reference to this "chair" being created, or to anyone who held it before Fitzgerald (which seems improbable anyway, since Henry Marsh (neurosurgeon) himself was only 46 in 1996), or since. See Talk:Michael_Fitzgerald_(psychiatrist)#Notable?. Pinging everyone who particiapted there: User:Tryptofish, User:ElKevbo, User:Tacyarg. E Eng 21:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. E Eng 21:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The Marsh Professorship is at least verifiable through official TCD documents and not just Fitzgerald's own cv: the TCD Calendar 2007–2008 lists him as "Henry Marsh Professor of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1996)", where I think the year is the founding of the chair. Maybe it was named for Sir Henry Marsh, 1st Baronet? — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Sorry, I should have been clearer. I'm not questioning whether he held the position, but I am questioning whether the position truly qualifies as a "named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment". I mean, obviously it has a name, but the fact that it seems to have been a one-off (i.e. it seems to have been vacant since Fitzgerald gave it up) makes me wonder what's really going on. Interesting that you've found another candidate Henry Marsh (and this one Irish -- mine was English, and we're talking about Trinity Dublin) but the fact that neither you nor I nor anyone else seems to be able to figure out the origin of this "chair" is a further bad sign. E Eng 23:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. It seems to me that a strict reading of WP:PROF kind of "forces" a keep on the basis of that named chair, but I'm not a big fan of technical reasons for notability when they seem at odds with common sense. (I don't think the history of the chair matters for our purposes, since being the inaugural Professor in that position is, arguably, a reason to find notability.) I'm having trouble seeing any other reasons to keep. I'm going to wait another day or so, before making up my mind about this AfD, but I feel it is useful for me to register these thoughts now. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Psychiatry and Ireland. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. I see this as a borderline case. On the plus side, we have clear sourcing that he has held a named chair professorship; it does not matter that there is little or no information on the creation of the chair, or that he was the first person to hold it, or that the chair has not been filled after he retired from it. But on the minus side, I looked at his publications at Google Scholar, and in particular I looked at the numbers of times his publications were cited by others. He has a couple of publications that got cited a few hundred times, but most of them have citations in the tens. Comparing that with other prominent academic psychiatrists, who have corresponding numbers in the hundreds to thousands, leads me to conclude that his work has had a modest impact in his field. That makes me come down, weakly, on the side of him not really passing WP:PROF. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Well again, my point is that the lack of any trace of reference of any kind, anywhere, to this "chair", other than that Fitzgerald seems to have held the position for a period, makes me wonder whether it's indeed a distinguished professorship instead of a hopeful label that never got off the ground. Anyway, I do think "weak delete" is the right way of putting it. E Eng 19:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC) P.S. Here [27] we learn that Fitzgerald was the first occupant, which to be honest makes it even weirder that there's no trace of any annoucement of where this chair comes from. reply
    Actually, the Trinity College calendars linked to by David also show the year the chair was established as being the same year that Fitzgerald was named to it. But your link in the PS part of your comment refers only to him claiming to be the first person in Ireland to be tenured as a Professor of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, but that's not as the named chair. I think your insistence on it being a "hopeful label" is just a distraction from this AfD discussion, because there's nothing remarkable about a university position not being filled after someone steps down from it. That might just mean that the faculty search was unsuccessful, something that happens fairly often in academia. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Changed to keep. Other editors, below, have clearly demonstrated that I screwed up in my citation search. Woops. Therefore, his impact in his field is clearly demonstrated, and that makes for an unambiguous "keep". -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • strong keep. I dont think the chair is reason enough to keep the article but a professor with 42 papers with 100+ citations and an h-index of 58 clearly passes the bar for WP:NPROF#1 - applying a much higher standard here than in other AfD discussions does not seem to make sense to me. -- hroest 21:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm confused. I only saw a few papers with that many citations. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Here are the Scopus metrics for 200+ of Fitzgerald's coauthors with 20+ papers (absent the ones from one consensus statement with a million authors):
    Total citations: average: 17819, median: 8627, Fitzgerald: 6717.
    Total papers: 242, 162, 198.
    h-index: 57, 45, 40.
    Top 5 citations: 1st: 1495, 834, 636. 2nd: 906, 498, 447. 3rd: 704, 388, 339. 4th: 580, 324, 298. 5th: 493, 295, 294.
    This is an extremely high-citation field. JoelleJay ( talk) 02:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as a pass of WP:Author. I found nine academic reviews of Autism and Creativity: Is There a Link Between Autism in Men and Exceptional Ability? including the British Medical Journal and the Lancet. [1] (One a joint review with the next book.) I found four reviews of The Genesis of Artistic Creativity: Asperger's Syndrome and the Arts (one a joint review with the previous book). [2] I found one review each of Young, Violent & Dangerous to Know and Unstoppable Brilliance: Irish Geniuses and Asperger's Syndrome (cites included in the article, but not here.) -- Jahaza ( talk) 02:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    I found a second review of Unstoppable Brilliance although I haven't been able to access it. [28] Jahaza ( talk) 03:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Reviewed in:
  2. ^ Reviewed in:
  • Keep. We now have a clear case for WP:AUTHOR and a plausible case for WP:PROF#C1, so we no longer need to clarify the case for #C5. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    OK, let's 86 this AfD PDQ. E Eng 19:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify‎. as an ATD Liz Read! Talk! 21:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Estonia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2023

Estonia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2023 (  | 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 event being hosted in November. There is no evidence this appearance in this event will be notable until the event is over or closer. — Karnataka talk 21:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Mo Yaqub

Mo Yaqub (  | 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 former footballer who played a few minutes of professional football and which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Aside from the primary sources and routine coverage included in the article now, there is nothing more than routine transasctional coverage available online (e.g., [29]). There is simply no significant coverage available. Jogurney ( talk) 20:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. I've never seen the deletion rationale that an article should be deleted because it's a "short list." Liz Read! Talk! 19:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

List of cancelled Nintendo Switch games

List of cancelled Nintendo Switch games (  | 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:NOTCATALOG, short list with hardly any sources. Summerslam2022 ( talk) 19:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Summerslam2022 ( talk) 19:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - every entry is sourced, so I'm not entirely sure what the complaint is there. There's also long-standing precedent for "list of cancelled (platform) games" list articles to exist so I find the entire nomination puzzling. It's also a valid WP:SIZESPLIT because of the massive size of the List of Nintendo Switch games articles, which keeps getting split because it keeps hitting literal size maxes for articles. Im also confused conceptually how a list of games that will never be commercially released be a catalogue violation? Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It is well-sourced, it meets LISTN, and the NOTCATALOG part of the nomination makes no sense. QuicoleJR ( talk) 19:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh ( talk) 20:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete These are games released on other systems that they wanted to release on the Switch, but had problems and decided not to. You can't list every single game that was released on one system but not ported to all systems, that would be long and pointless. Dream Focus 20:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    This is a misrepresentation of what this article is. It's not "every single game that was released on one system but not ported to all systems". It's got established and specific inclusion criteria. It only lists games that have a reliable source that verifies a game was announced for the Switch, but was later cancelled. Sergecross73 msg me 20:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    The references I clicked on are just quoting press releases and making brief mentions that it won't be ported to the Switch as planned. Is there a single item on the list with significant coverage? Dream Focus 00:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    WP:VG/S-approved sources commonly write dedicated articles about game cancellations. Like Polygon on Midnight Suns or IGN on Final Fantasy 15 or Gamespot on Hypersports. Sergecross73 msg me 00:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Those are not significant coverage, just quoting game designers or game companies announcing they aren't porting them. Some articles contain mentions of other things in them, but the content about a game being cancelled for porting to the Switch is not significant. Dream Focus 02:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    They're literally articles dedicated to the subject, with the Switch cancellation making the headline each time. That's not a passing mention, that's significant coverage. What is going on here? We've interacted at AFD for decades at this point now. You never hold articles to such a insanely high sourcing standard, nor would you tolerate someone trying to pull this on you, so I'm completely confused as to why you've decided to move the goalpost for this particular list. Sergecross73 msg me 02:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I just can't imagine anyone wanting to read this article. It seems pointless. If you want to add a sentence or two to the game articles as to why they weren't ported to the Switch, that might make sense. Does it matter if any games were announced then canceled, or just not planned to begin with? Should we have a list of games that were ported to every other modern port other than Nintendo Switch because of its limitations or other reasons? Not all companies release a press statement for something like this since its pointless. Web only news sources have to fill content so sometimes a few sentence announcement and make it into a very short article, doesn't really count as significant coverage. Dream Focus 20:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    None of that is a valid deletion rationale. That's one giant WP:IDONTLIKEIT violation. We don't delete things just because someone personally doesn't find it of interest. I was recently bored out of my mind reading the stag beetle article. That doesn't give me a valid AFD nomination. Sergecross73 msg me 20:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to List of Nintendo Switch games Don't really see a reason this has to be standalone. Surely cancelled games can also be featured under the overall game list, but marked as cancelled rather than having a release date. Having a list solely for cancelled games feels like an airing of grievances from angered Switch owners. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 20:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    The list of Switch games has already been WP:SIZESPLIT five times over, and is already headed for more. I also wrote all the "notes", and it was not from a place of grievance, but from a place of fascination in the video game development process. There's no negatively there (if it comes off that way, please, anyone tweak it, that was not the intent.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Well, there are lists on Wikipedia that are literally just single letters such as Index of Windows games so I still don't see the problem. If it merits it, the list of Switch games can be split along the same lines.
    I don't really see where the game development angle comes in though, because most of them have barely any insight into any special reason for cancellation besides "it was too hard" or "it wasn't profitable". 100% cancelled games often have interesting insight into "what could have been" but these are just ports of otherwise released games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 22:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    You "don't see a problem" with SIZESPLITing 26 unsourced Windows games lists but do have a problem with splitting out one game list that entails sourced commentary for every entry? I'm struggling to follow your philosophy on lists here... Sergecross73 msg me 22:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm entirely befuddled by the notion that it's a problem that this list of cancelled games is limited to only games cancelled for budget issues and games cancelled for technical issues. Should there be games cancelled for political issues? Games cancelled for fun? The only third thing I could think of would be games moved from Switch to the next platform, but obviously, that's not something that could exist at the moment. Unless you're taking issue with the existence of all list of cancelled video games, I don't see what the issue is. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk) 22:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I was puzzled by that too. "Difficulties in programming" and "difficulties in budget" are some of the most relevant and important aspects in the gaming making industry. And it's a list, so it's not like it's the place to write up a full multi-paragraph detailed account of things. Sergecross73 msg me 22:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep All games are sourced, and it meets LISTN. I see no reason to delete this list. FlutterDash344 ( talk) 21:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It does not have "few" sources, it has as many sources as is necessary for the size of the list. Merging is also not viable, as the list of Nintendo Switch games is already large as it is. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk) 22:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Every entry sourced, NOTCATALOG doesn't apply here. -- Mika1h ( talk) 17:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Speedy keep; Not seeing why this was nominated? The article is sourced and the article servers a purpose. How does NOTCATALOG apply here? Negative MP1 18:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Subject has good enough sourcing and passes WP:LISTN as a result. User:Let'srun 21:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as others have explained. It's well-sourced – I have no idea what the nominator meant by "hardly any sources" – and the only other arguments for deletion presented thus far seem to amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - Revolutionary girl euclid ( talk) 19:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Confusion Bowl

Confusion Bowl (  | 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 college football "rivalry" game. Has only been played three times, with a fourth this coming week. O.N.R.  (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I've heard this referred to as the Confusion Bowl in years past. I follow college football fairly regularly and thought this was reasonably well known. Auggiewestbound ( talk) 20:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG. There is already significant coverage in the article dating dating back to the 1940s. Alvaldi ( talk) 21:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete per nom. Coverage listed in the article is WP:ROUTINE game summaries or pregame reports, or simple commentary on how the two schools have similar names. This fails GNG in terms of establishing a rivalry or notable series between the two schools who will have played each other four times after this week. Two football teams with zero sourced animosity toward each other who have similar names does not mean their series of meetings is notable. Carson Wentz ( talk) 00:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Nobody cares about ur opinion 153.33.88.22 ( talk) 17:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Article is trying to avoid saying that this series is a "rivalry", but failing to establish why the series meets WP:GNG. 02:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC) ( u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿
  • Keep The "Confusion Bowl" name for this series was coined in 1945 and has been used for each and every meeting between the teams. The Miami-Miami game generates multiple dedicated articles from reliable sources every time it is played. This is not WP:ROUTINE coverage of football games; the articles are written specifically with regards to how abnormal the same-name matchup is. A named "bowl game" with dozens of reliable source articles written about it over 78 years is notable and passes WP:GNG regardless of the scant few times they have played or lack of "true rivalry". PK-WIKI ( talk) 04:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Agree 100%. 2600:4040:475D:6000:4826:FCEE:EEFD:B226 ( talk) 14:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per arguments above SUBWAYguy 13:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:GNG and comments above by User:Alvaldi and User:PK-WIKI. The article does not assert that the series is a "rivalry", and arguments against such a rivalry existing are thus a red herring. The bad feelings between the two Miami universities dates back to the founding of the Florida school in the 1920s (a century after the Ohio school), and I've added a bit of context on that. Cbl62 ( talk) 13:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per arguments above, there is enough documented history surrounding the series for it to be notable. I also do not understand the arguments that a page about a series between two teams has to be some kind of nasty rivalry in order for it to merit an article. Jlm87 ( talk) 16:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep per arguments above and per WP:GNG. The Confusion Bowl has been documented in previous verifiable citations, it has been discussed as such in each meaning. I am also confused about the need for it to be a rivalry to count - this is not a requirement per WP:GNG. If this standard is applied to this article it will result in several other sports-related articles and meetings between groups to be reviewed and proposed for deletion. DesertVulture ( talk) 05:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep notable series with with many reliable source articles that go beyond routine summaries. They explain the history between the two schools (concerning football and other topics) as well as the origins of the "Confusion Bowl" moniker. Frank Anchor 18:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As the Confusion Bowl has been known in media since 1945, I feel that should be enough to keep the page up. OrlandoApollosFan69 ( talk) 00:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep consistent news coverage of the name across several decades meets GNG. Furthermore, arguments on the extent of the rivalry and/or how much animosity/number of games played against each other are both subjective and irrelevant (no WP guideline specifies a minimum number of games). Even if its sole notability comes from being a mildly humorous coincidence in name, there is sufficient sourcing—including from outside the home markets of the two communities in question, which disqualifies the use of WP:ROUTINE to pooh-pooh them—to justify its inclusion here. J. Myrle Fuller ( talk) 21:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep All that matters is whether it passes GNG. Whether it can truly be called a "rivalry" is irrelevant. It has received significant coverage in numerous sources for a sustained period of time, and as such passes GNG. Smartyllama ( talk) 11:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Clearly passes WP:GNG. This should probably be speedily kept. -- Rockstone Send me a message! 05:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎ ( WP:G5). (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE 04:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Nirav Chahwala

Nirav Chahwala (  | 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)

References are typical WP:NEWSORGINDIA. A WP:BEFORE found nothing better to establish notability. Was originally draftified but moved back to mainspace by creator. CNMall41 ( talk) 17:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 16:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

North Valley City, North Dakota

North Valley City, North Dakota (  | 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 rail siding on the outskirts of Valley City; not a separate settlement. Mangoe ( talk) 16:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and North Dakota. Shellwood ( talk) 16:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. @ Mangoe: Not specifically related to North Valley City, but I found this list of resources about North Dakota place names: https://www.familysearch.org/en/wiki/North_Dakota_Gazetteers If you have access to any of these publications (perhaps at your local library), you might be able to better tell whether a GNIS point was a community or not. In general, searching for (name of state) gazetteer ought to help you find some helpful resources. * Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Without reliable sources that either describe this as a legally recognized populated place or provide significant coverage (GNIS is neither), we have nothing to establish notability. – dlthewave ☎ 18:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 16:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Enabled.in

Enabled.in (  | 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)

Page was created by the same person who created the website ( WP:COI). I also don't believe the coverage this has received is enough to pass WP:NCORP or WP:WEB. Sgubaldo ( talk) 15:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Websites, and India. Sgubaldo ( talk) 15:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article is nowhere near enough to meet WP:NCORP. There does not seem to be enough references to establish notability and it is written like an advertisement. The prose is also very poor. Article was created by the person who created the site. FlutterDash344 ( talk) 21:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Subject not notable, and the very short article is basically an advert. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎. This article was deleted CSD G5 before this discussion could be closed. Liz Read! Talk! 03:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Abdul Adnan

Abdul Adnan (  | 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)

Perhaps others see it differently, but I get the impression that the sources about this actor/businessperson aren't actually independent reliable sources, but press releases / self-penned hagiographies pretending to be real articles. Take e.g. the first source [30], from the Times of India (or something similar), used to source his awards and nominations. All very high praise, but it seems to be impossible to find out for which series or films he actually did receive these awards for? His IMDb entry (given as an external link) is empty... Fram ( talk) 15:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and India. Fram ( talk) 15:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this is almost certainly promotional, WP:NOTPROMO. For now, I've removed the most obvious advertisement for the subject's own product. Also, the so-called "Dada Saheb Phalke Indian Television award" seems to be a knock-off award. — siro χ o 16:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - First, PROMO is never a reason for deletion through AfD. If it is a case of TNT, it can be done through Speedy. That aside, the references are classic WP:NEWSORGINDIA so cannot be used to show notability. Notice they are all published within the last 60 days, written in promotional tone, and in publications that allow sponsored content. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 17:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    WP:NOTPROMO/ WP:PROMO is part of WP:NOT, which is a valid policy reason for deletion by WP:DEL-REASON#14. — siro χ o 19:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I believe it would be WP:DEL-REASON#1 since NOT would be criteria for speedy deletion. Being that you went with an WP:ATD and removed promotional content, and since AfC is WP:NOTCLEANUP, I am not sure how that criteria would still apply so the !vote was puzzling. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 20:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I see you did the same with another AfD that was moved by creator. I attempted to move it back but see you fixed it before I could figure out the process. Thanks for doing that. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 20:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 15:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

ISeleb

ISeleb (  | 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)

Disputed draftification. Useless references. As written fails WP:GNG 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

i just to revised and repair the article of Indonesian programs Tomboyprida ( talk) 15:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
To be accurate, @ Tomboyprida, you made an unwise unilateral move to mainspace of an article that required work as a draft. That move triggered this deletion discussion 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Tomboyprida has been blocked as a sock of the blocked article creator. Liz Read! Talk! 22:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 15:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Indah Setyani

Indah Setyani (  | 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)

Disputed draftification. Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm just trying to improve articles from Indonesia because there are very few articles there, please cooperate to be revised. thanks Tomboyprida ( talk) 16:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Tomboyprida your unilateral move of this article to mainspace has triggered this deletion discussion. It was not ready to be an article. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
so let's revise or add sentences that are worthy of being the main article. Tomboyprida ( talk) 16:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I hope that is achieved. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
thanks my friends to revised it althoght the few sources Tomboyprida ( talk) 16:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Tomboyprida has been blocked as a sock of the blocked article creator. Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Procedural Keep. The last AFD on this article was closed 2 days ago. Do not immediately renominate it for another AFD discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Cliffjumper

AfDs for this article:
Cliffjumper (  | 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)

Looked at google for notability, very few credible mainstream outlets talk about the character specifically, the majority of the coverage about him is about his toys from fansites. Grandmaster Huon ( talk) 15:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 15:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Unicron

Unicron (  | 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)

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22Unicron%22+-wikipedia&tbs=ar:1 Aside from sources about his appearance in Rise of the Beasts or his enthusiast oriented toy (which is not notable), I have found zero other credible sources about his history, reception or anything else that makes him notable. Grandmaster Huon ( talk) 15:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Procedural Keep due to questionable motives of nominator and flood of similar nominations leaving no time for anyone to do non-Google research. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk) 19:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Transformers: The Movie, which is what he is most known for. While I found these sources, they are fairly basic at best, and far below the standard of other more notable characters who were nevertheless merged. That said, I do think that the nominator needs to slow down on the AfDs, as editors should be here not just to tear articles down but to also build them up. But, a speedy keep should only apply if they are being nominated without merit, which just isn't the case here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 21:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Weak keep Per source found by Dream Focus, indicating numerous instances of significant coverage in reliable sources. While still weak, the nominator's rationale is no longer valid. This is more of a matter for a merge discussion than an AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 00:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per Zxcvbnm. There's a clear redirect target for a valid search term, but not enough WP:SIGCOV to support a separate article. Shooterwalker ( talk) 03:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect Lacking of SIGCOV. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 05:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/transformers-last-knight-ending-explained-who-is-unicron-1016892/ Search for "unicron" in that, see how much detail they give about him across various fictional media. An article written about him https://ew.com/movies/2017/06/23/transformers-the-last-knight-spoilers-unicron/ and another one here https://www.avclub.com/unicron-rise-of-the-beasts-transformers-1850491334 both of which give significant coverage. Dream Focus 20:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    only for cgi movie version of unicron, not animated movie unicron, which this article is primarily about. Grandmaster Huon ( talk) 17:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    WP:SOFIXIT. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 17:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep obviously satisfies GNG. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 00:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the arguments above. BOZ ( talk) 14:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep . Satisfies GNG easily. SnowFire ( talk) 18:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I appreciate the discussion must still run its course but it is worth noting that the nominator has been blocked for persistent bad faith actions. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk) 19:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as he is the biggest star of the 1986 Transformers the movie, and is a major character in the Transformers franchise. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 02:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as this seems to be the primary topic and meets the general notability guidelines. At the very least, I wanted to say that I oppose deletion because this can very well fit as a redirect to Unicorn (to which Unicron exists as a hatnote on that page). But, Unicron seems to have enough to stand on its own as an article, so redirection will likely not be necessary and this can just be kept. Utopes ( talk / cont) 06:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep with similar thoughts to my comments on other recent similar nominations. Multiple toys, character on tv, movies, videogame, etc. I'm sorry, just too many of these noms at once. — siro χ o 09:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 15:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Fallen (Transformers)

Fallen (Transformers) (  | 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)

Has been languishing in the notability area for two months now, checked google and found no sources about the character, only talking about the transformers movies themselves. Grandmaster Huon ( talk) 15:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Procedural Keep due to questionable motives of nominator and flood of similar nominations leaving no time for anyone to do non-Google research. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk) 19:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Comics and animation, and Toys. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep obviously satisfies GNG. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 00:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    citation needed Grandmaster Huon ( talk) 15:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment for the record I personally don't think two months is a particularly long time for something to have notability tags for, considering Wikipedia is a part-time hobby for editors (unless you guys are getting paid, in which case tell me how!). At the risk of invoking Other Stuff Exists, just the comics section alone has multiple articles that have been tagged for a decade-plus (many potentially violating BLP) which need more urgent attention, which once again suggests the nominator is following some sort of personal agenda rather than a genuine desire to improve the wider project. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk) 10:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Yes, I have a personal agenda, a personal agenda to rid Wikipedia of fancruft. Grandmaster Huon ( talk) 15:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Which you're focusing almost entirely on a single toy franchise in a non-constructive manner, which several experienced Wikipedians have asked you to modify and your answer has been to resort to petty " citation needed" responses. For someone aiming for "a Wikipedia with zero incidents of disruption" you're sure going out of your way to create as many as possible despite several recommendations that you work on constructive repair work before getting overly-involved in AfDs and the like. Remember, you're supposed to have only have returned to editing a month ago... BoomboxTestarossa ( talk) 16:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I appreciate the discussion must still run its course but it is worth noting that the nominator has been blocked for persistent bad faith actions. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk) 19:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I see no support for deleting this article. Liz Read! Talk! 15:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Leroy Jethro Gibbs

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

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

I am sending this to AfD because I may be wrong and there are independent, reliable sources that don't just talk about him in passing (see Ziva David as an example). If there is not, I would recommend a merge and/or redirect to List of NCIS characters#Leroy Jethro Gibbs. Spinixster (chat!) 14:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 14:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Upon a quick read-through, this article absolutely has problems. It feels bloated, and it seems to teeter over the line into in-universe perspective. However, if the issue is whether the character is notable on its own for its cultural impact, I feel satisfied that it is. I typed "cultural impact of Jethro Gibbs" into Google--not even Google Scholar--and got a page full of strong-looking sources right away (two of which are probably usable): Reuters Newsweek 2022 People didn't just write about this character when the show was in its heyday. There's recent stuff too. That's in addition to blogs and YouTube videos analyzing the character. We wouldn't use most of them for sources, but they're there. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 20:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC) EDIT: And some of this stuff on Google Scholar might be good [31]... And I'm seeing more than one editorial comparing Gibbs to real-life political figures... [32] Darkfrog24 ( talk) 20:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC) Addendum: This article has been nominated for deletion a lot, but the last time was over thirteen years ago. A request for revaluation was not inappropriate. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 22:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'll be evaluating the sources:
    • The first source is an opinion piece, which isn't bad, but it doesn't necessarily prove notability.
    • The second is a WP:TRIVIA / WP:NOTTVTROPES of sorts, which also doesn't necessarily prove notability but can be used in the storylines section.
    • Fourth source compares him to real-life political figures, which also doesn't necessarily prove his notability but can still be used.
    The Google Scholar sources can still probably be used, though depending on what they cover, they may or may not prove notability. Spinixster (chat!) 03:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Excellent, you should evaluate the sources. However, I think the fact that journalists writing editorials (I mean the Reuters and Citizen-Times sources) use this fictional character as a touchstone when evaluating real-life society and politicians is very much indicative of that character's notability. It shows that he's leaked out of his own sphere and into the general cultural consciousness. The second author mentions Jethro Gibbs in the same breath as John Wayne and expects the reader to know who he is without explanation. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 03:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    I interpreted it as meaning that the character is popular enough for people to know who he is. Popularity doesn't equal notability ( WP:N: Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below. So your best hope is Google Scholar. Spinixster (chat!) 08:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    "My" best "hope"? I think you might be overestimating my role in this. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 12:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    You are once again misinterpreting what I'm saying, but whatever, I said what I said. Spinixster (chat!) 14:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep per sources found by DarkFrog. Willing to change votes depending on how the discussion goes but I think what's been discussed satisfies. Pokelego999 ( talk) 05:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:HEY. The citations provided, and comments made, by DarkFrog have convinced me that standalone notability is established. A. Randomdude0000 ( talk) 03:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, at this point. A lead character in a highly notable series will almost always have sufficient coverage, and this one does. BD2412 T 14:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, the sources found by DarkFrog seem sufficient to showcase notability, though the article and especially the "Personality" section is in an absolutely parlous state. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 02:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 15:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Dinobot (Beast Wars)

Dinobot (Beast Wars) (  | 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 real notability here after checking the news sources [33], all I find are content farms and fansites. Grandmaster Huon ( talk) 14:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Procedural Keep due to questionable motives of nominator and flood of similar nominations leaving no time for anyone to do non-Google research. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk) 19:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep obviously satisfies GNG. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 00:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    citation needed Grandmaster Huon ( talk) 15:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I appreciate the discussion must still run its course but it is worth noting that the nominator has been blocked for persistent bad faith actions. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk) 19:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - There are some sources in the article already, but additionally: A good amount of character discussion occurs in this comic review. I know it's CBR, but this is an actual review as opposed to a listicle (where he definitely shows up in a few as well). Dinobot comes up in several of CBR's pieces on this run, but most recap the story (another shortcoming at times). This one spends more time on Dinobot himself. He seems to be one of the more notable aspects of Beast Wars highlighted by Collider in this piece, and while Flickering Myth covered an entire three-season run, discussion dedicated to Dinobot exceeded WP:100WORDS here. Polygon also dedicates quite a bit of discussion of him in a couple different pieces: One where Dinobot comes up in discussion of the recent film Transformers: Rise of the Beasts where he doesn't appear to even be a character, and another in coverage of Transformers: War for Cybertron Trilogy. Plenty of sources WP:NEXIST. This one doesn't need as much trimming as some of the others, but a little could stand to be removed. - 2pou ( talk) 23:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 15:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Vish Khanna

Vish Khanna (  | 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)

Unsourced WP:BLP. Prod removed for some reason. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep Talk 14:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Journalism, Radio, and Canada. Hey man im josh ( talk) 14:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Delete Non-notable media personality with the CBC. I've found a few things written by this individual [34], [35], but nothing we can use to establish notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete because the person does not pass WP:BIO. TipsyElephant ( talk) 10:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I'm certainly aware of Vish Khanna, because as a Canadian editor who works on musical topics I often cite stuff he wrote for Exclaim! — in fact, I distinctly remember adding a citation to a piece of his writing within the past two days, though damned if I can remember off the top of my head what article I added it to. But the notability test for media personalities isn't the extent to which they've been the creator of coverage about other things, it's the extent to which they've been the subject of coverage created by other people. However, the only references here are to Blogspot blogs, one of which is an interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person and the other is a glancing namecheck of his existence in an interview with somebody else — but that's not the kind of sourcing it takes, and I can't find anything else that would count as GNG-building coverage. Reliable sourcing means real media outlets and books covering his work as news, not Blogspot blogs or staff profiles on the self-published websites of his own current or former employers. Bearcat ( talk) 16:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Roblox games. Liz Read! Talk! 15:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Frontlines (Roblox)

Frontlines (Roblox) (  | 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)

BEFORE shows no more usable source, only this [36] . Thus, failing WP:N. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 14:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to List of Roblox games The sources are largely just news articles saying "hey this exists", but WP:SIGCOV requires the sources to be able to fully encompass the game, which is difficult without previews/reviews. There's already a page for these sorts of Roblox-created games, most of which don't merit an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 16:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of Roblox games; As the page creator I'll self admit that I was unable to stretch the sources used as much as I expected. I still believe this can be a standalone subject, but I'll let time decide that on if the game gets more coverage during the Roblox Innovation Awards.
Negative MP1 16:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect or Delete per nom. This article has no signs of notablity at all. Fails WP:GNG. Summerslam2022 ( talk) 18:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Oh come on. I understand and agree with there being a merger/redirect since the subject is covered elsewhere, but there's still notability to the subject, with several articles that discussed it majorly in some form. The article shouldn't be completely deleted. Negative MP1 19:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Why would you oppose the proposed redirect target? Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply

The Animals of Farthing Wood (disambiguation)

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

There are two articles in this disambiguation page, but one article is now a redirect. MirrorPlanet ( talk) 12:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 13:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. All three are related and described in the main article, so this dab page has no purpose. Clarityfiend ( talk) 10:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Clarityfiend. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 20:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 11:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Guido Moerkotte

Guido Moerkotte (  | 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:NPROF and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Computing, and Germany. UtherSRG (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    No, it does not. It passes multiple WP:NPROF criteria (at least #1 and #5). He is holding his own chair at university of Mannheim, which equals a distinguished professor. This is also mentioned in the article. So please remove the nomination for deletion or be more precise. MaxEmanuel ( talk) 13:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Pass of WP:Prof#C1. Having said that, the BLP is very poorly written. Xxanthippe ( talk) 02:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC). reply
  • Keep. Passes NPROF#1 with an h-index of 44 and 19 papers with 100+ citations. -- hroest 21:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Gil's Thrilling (And Filling) Blog

Gil's Thrilling (And Filling) Blog (  | 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)

Cannot find enough WP:SIGCOV to establish that this blog passes WP:GNG. I have performed a search within local newspapers but can only find passing mentions of the blog within short restaurant reviews by Gil Garduño. pinktoebeans (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 11:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Total Experience

Total Experience (  | 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)

Apparently Gartner identified "Total Experience" as a trend in 2021, which spurred a number of knock-off articles with essentially the same content, but now, two years later, the trend appears to have not taken off as Gartner predicted, and little to no actual information can be found about this topic. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete On initial before I thought this was going to be keep, but on review I can only find one additional reliable use of the term:
https://www.techradar.com/opinion/total-experience-a-trend-for-future-business
WP:NOTNEO implies at least three sources are needed, and I couldn't find two others, hence my vote. BrigadierG ( talk) 12:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete Plenty of mentions of the term in PR items, nothing beyond that. [37] is about the best I can find. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 11:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Metropolitan Police Public Order Operational Command Unit

Metropolitan Police Public Order Operational Command Unit (  | 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 particularly notable entity, of three sources cited, one is dead and other two are wrong (relating to dog unit and mounted branch).

Cannot find many reliable external sources on this unit, many are Wikipedia mirrors. Elshad ( talk) 11:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 11:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Embassy of Palestine, Tashkent

Embassy of Palestine, Tashkent (  | 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)

Embassies are not inherently notable. All this article does is confirm it exists. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar ( talk) 09:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. This does not prevent an editorial decision to merge or redirect in the future. Stifle ( talk) 08:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Orna Datz

Orna Datz (  | 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)

Thoroughly fails WP:NBIO. Not a single source is cited, and it is poorly formatted. QuickQuokka [⁠ talk • contribs 07:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Strong Delete Unsourced WP:BLP. Possible redirect or merge to article Duo Datz shoudl should sufficient sources be found. scope_creep Talk 14:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge completely and with positive prejudice into Duo Datz. Both the nomination and the sole reaction are based on false assumptions and disregard the golden WP:NEXIST rule. As such, these should be completely discounted. Does that mean that the article should be kept? Not necessarily. The article is so short that all its contents can be merged into Duo Datz without creating any concern of WP:UNDUE. This recommendation reflects the length of the article and is not a statement of Datz's notability, which she passes at the greatest of ease. If someone wants to create a more developed article on "Datza" later on, they are very welcome to do so! gidonb ( talk) 18:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep, there were numerous articles from the Israeli major media outlets from the 80th and 90th when her fame was at its peak. Tzahy ( talk) 11:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - she won 3rd place at the Eurovision Song Contest 1991 per 1. There is probably enough coverage to support her notability for article inclusion, such as 2, 3, 4, 5. - Indefensible ( talk) 06:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    The Hebrew article on the subject also has a lot more coverage and references which can be translated for improving this article. - Indefensible ( talk) 06:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Merge to Duo Datz. Notable as a member of Duo Datz only. That article has been greatly expanded and covers most, if not all, aspects of this individual's notable endeavors. It even contains a section on her personal life. This bio article duplicates much of the duo's article without the context. Grk1011 ( talk) 13:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    If you look at the Hebrew article, there seems to be a lot more than just the Duo Datz stuff. - Indefensible ( talk) 15:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Indefensible: Hmmm... Maybe I can translate the article to English, as I am a native Hebrew speaker. QuickQuokka [⁠ talk • contribs 14:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Certainly would be a good candidate for translation, I think she meets for inclusion per my vote earlier. - Indefensible ( talk) 19:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • 'Comment I spoke to QuickQuokka. The editor is not going to do the work. So its a merge. Most of the article is already in the expanded Duo Datz. scope_creep Talk 06:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    So if you think it should be a merge, that means your prior vote for delete is struck, right? But if there is known material which could be used for expansion, then we should actually keep the article with a translation request. - Indefensible ( talk) 01:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 ( t • c) 09:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Phillip Good

Phillip Good (  | 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 statistician, article created by an WP:SPA. Last paragraph is essentially advertising. Tercer ( talk) 12:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep, AfD is not clean-up. The subject is the author of multiple textbooks in his subject, textbooks that have been independently reviewed. [38] Some of his texts have run to multiple editions over considerable periods. [39] By all means delete anything that's promotional and reformat to make the text more appropriate, but deletion is inappropriate. Elemimele ( talk) 12:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Being a co-author of a textbook that has received a single review is very thin gruel. Now being the sole author of a textbook that has received many reviews and editions is much better, but still not enough if that's everything he's done.
I did check the 3 papers that are mentioned as his "selected publications", and they are not at all well-cited. this has 115 citations, which is rather little for medicine, and he is anyway only one coauthor of a long list of authors. this has 6 citations, which is almost nothing even for statistics, and this has 7 citations. Tercer ( talk) 14:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep very thin mentions as above, weak pass at notability for Scholar. I think having 6 and 7 citations is still more than most academics we see here. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    No, 6 and 7 citations is nothing. Any random PhD student has that. WP:NPROF requires much more. Tercer ( talk) 09:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I concur that 6 and 7 citations is far, far below what we expect for a WP:PROF#C1 pass. I definitely crossed that threshold well before I was done with graduate school. Nothing mentioned in this discussion so far amounts to a pass of any applicable criterion, in my opinion. Right now, I'm inclining towards a "delete" !vote, but if multiple books have been reviewed multiple times apiece, that could change (per WP:NAUTHOR and maybe WP:PROF#C4). XOR'easter ( talk) 21:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • weak delete the three papers that are mentioned as major achievements have very low citation counts so this will not pass WP:NPROF. He may pass WP:NAUTHOR having 2 books with one review each (which is the minimal criterion), but for one of the books he is not a sole author so I also dont see the subject passing this bar. -- hroest 18:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep After hitting up JSTOR, I believe that WP:NAUTHOR is met for the reason I suggested above. Reviews of A Practitioner's Guide to Resampling for Data Analysis, Data Mining, and Modeling: [40] [41] [42]. Reviews of the co-authored Common Errors in Statistics (and How to Avoid Them): [43] [44]. Review of The A-Z Of Error-Free Research: [45] ( [46] is very short). Reviews of Applying Statistics in the Courtroom: A New Approach for Attorneys and Expert Witnesses: [47] [48]. Reviews of Permutation, Parametric and Bootstrap Tests of Hypotheses: [49] [50] [51] [52]. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:AUTHOR and the reviews found by XOR'easter. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist for closing an old log, and to seek some further input on the reviews found by XOR'easter.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 06:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Naijatastic

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

Created since 2021, the sources available are paid for (Partner at TechCabal is a tag for paid sources) and it is laced with a lot of unreliable sources. Best, Reading Beans ( talk) 06:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete per Reading Beans and his/her source evaluation. Given our discussions elsewhere about the difficulties evaluating Nigerian sources, I trust his/her judgement. This is tricky for oyiboes like me. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 06:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete per nominator. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 20:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Sources are Paid/PR sources as mentioned by ReadingBeans. Jamiebuba ( talk) 14:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I agree that all current sources are only promotional and I tried to find some other sources. I could find anything but promo and presentation-like articles, such as in Tribune Online Nigeria, This Day Live, or Sun News. There is no external coverage in these sources as well, apart from the typical advertisement presentation. Chiserc ( talk) 08:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was ‎ keep. NYC Guru ( talk) 08:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply

List of vampire films

List of vampire films (  | 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)

Impossibly broad in scope; would be much better off as a category tree. Currently contains hundreds of entries and is sourced mostly to IMDB and other sources of user-generated content. Many entries in the "notes" column are copied verbatim from IMDB descriptions. Prose at the beginning of each section is mostly WP:SYNTH. — SamX [ talk · contribs 05:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 05:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The list has primary sources, mostly to IMDb and user-generated websites, which are not accepted. It is also too broad. This list is better off as a category. There is no reason for this list to exist. FlutterDash344 ( talk) 06:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Nothing about this is especially broad, and having IMDb sources is not a reason for deletion. ★Trekker ( talk) 07:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep. The guideline says: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Here I don't think that it is reasonable to say it hasn't. (But to be on the safe side, see this or this, for example) On top of that, a list can help organizing the films, for example chronologically, which a category can't. Note that there is also List of vampire television series. As for sourcing, required clean up and prose, it is another issue, as StarTrekker explained. And I too do not think it is "impossibly" broad. And if this is a real concern, let's split it in 1895-1950; 1951-2024, or by regions. But again, this is not the issue here.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Mushy. There is notability about this list's existence, especially in terms of ranking. IGN, IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, Buzzfeed, Reader's Digest, etc. However, the article needs some work for sure. Conyo14 ( talk) 16:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep passes WP:NLIST, not seeing a valid deletion reason, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 23:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per NLIST. I've removed some unnotable films (i.e. lacking articles) and miniseries. Clarityfiend ( talk) 10:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Split. Article has no context. Why does one need to know every vampire film? What knowledge is grasped? This list is horribly maintained, implying there is some Nosferatu series, it includes material such as production countries, year of release that are not backed up by their sources, has poor quality sources. Now the topic is also far too broad. If anything like this could be maintained, i'd cut it down by decades or even a century. What is the limit on this? Is a vampire film any film that has a vampire in once? the article "Vampire film" itself states it is a genre, but then just lists random vampire films with no context to its history or if anyone considers it a genre. Too broad of meaning until some rules can be established, and this article is going to get worse before "saving" what junk we have makes it any better. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 19:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It's useful research to scholars and the public and what are you going to do, delete all film lists on Wikipedia? 5Q5| ✉ 09:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:LC items 2, 5, and 9. Stifle ( talk) 08:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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! 04:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Pricena

Pricena (  | 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:NCORP. A WP:BEFORE found very little coverage and nothing in-depth to demonstrate notability. CNMall41 ( talk) 04:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Daily, North Dakota

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

Another GNIS stub, this time for a T intersection where there is a farm. Searching is hopeless. Mangoe ( talk) 04:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. given the improvements in the article since the nomination and the nominator's change of position regarding their nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 04:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Murrow Turning Over in His Grave

Murrow Turning Over in His Grave (  | 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 originally redirected this article to Say You Will (album), because this doesn't appear to be a particularly notable song. Across the seven sources, one of them is a YouTube link to a live performance, which certainly does not demonstrate notability, and another is a link to a fan site that has posted the lyrics of the song. Among the other sources (all of which qualify as reliable, as far as I know), none of them independently discuss this song, they all either fall under the category of album reviews that name-check the song (Slant), magazine profiles (Guitar Player), editorials about the subject of the song (Washington Post), or dead links that have no archives provided (Entertainment Weekly, FASPE Journalism). This doesn't look to have much worth keeping, and I do see this as a case where it should just be redirected to the main album article, but I will open this up for discussion, so that consensus can be established. JeffSpaceman ( talk) 03:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to Say You Will (album). As per the nomination, this song doesn't appear to be notable. Normally, I would skim the references myself but the nomination already did that. By the way, thanks for the due diligence. In a world of unhelpful cruft, you stand taller. IncompA 04:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep for this Fleetwood Mac song, per the Washington Post article which specifically builds the title and article around the topic of the song and thus meets WP:SIGCOV, the Guitar Player article which mentions its arrangement, etc. Easily meeting WP:GNG notability the song focuses on Edward R. Murrow, a hero of American journalism (full disclosure, I'm a journalism graduate and have worked in the field and related fields), and uses the fact that Murrow was and is known as an honest journalist to call into question the change in the way journalism diverted away from Murrow's type of integrity - making his integrity a touchstone of American values. That this song honors Murrow, that it is well covered in the media mentioned above, and that it meets GNG, passes the bar as a notable Wikipedia topic. Randy Kryn ( talk) 04:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I don't want to cast aspersions here, but it feels like you have a strong conflict of interest with the subject of the song. I am not trying to devalue your input, but saying things along the lines of, "The song focuses on [Murrow], a hero of American journalism... and uses the fact that Murrow was... known as an honest journalist to call into question the change in the way journalism diverted away from Murrow's type of integrity" unfortunately does not prove anything to me other than your passion for Murrow. Ultimately, your personal opinion on a subject involved in article, positive or negative, should not play a role in discussions like these. Struck per Liz's comment below. JeffSpaceman ( talk) 22:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    As for the rest of your argument, you state that the Washington Post named their article after the song. Please take a moment to read WP:Notability is not inherited, which explains why this type of reasoning should be avoided. Similarly, just because the Guitar Player article noted characteristics of the song does not mean that the song has significant, independent coverage in this magazine, something that is required of multiple reliable sources to establish notability of any subject, and something that unfortunately just is not present on this article at the moment. As for your closing statement, the fact that the song honors Murrow does not automatically render it notable. Once again, please read the subsection I linked at the beginning of this paragraph.
    I stand by all that I have argued. There is nothing here that I see being worth keeping. JeffSpaceman ( talk) 04:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
What a backhanded accusation ("No, really, believe me, I don't mean to cast aspersions here") that I have a conflict of interest because of my background. Excuse me? Do you mean that Wikipedia editors who have been educated or worked in a professional field that relates to a topic all have conflicts of interest and should be dismissed? There are many medical professionals, scientists, researchers, college professors, and on and on, who are valued Wikipedians. This is absurd, and striking out your entire first paragraph above would be a good start. Randy Kryn ( talk) 04:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I'm not trying to say that you have a conflict of interest merely because of your background -- in fact, I never said that because of your background in journalism, your opinion here is invalid. I simply stated that it seems like you have a conflict of interest related to Murrow specifically: your descriptions of him being a "hero of American journalism" and talking about his "integrity" have little (if any) neutrality present in them and simply do not belong in this discussion. Please don't bring your personal opinion about Murrow into this, talk about why removing the contents of this page isn't a good idea. I'm really not trying to come down on you, but your personal opinion on the subject of the song is irrelevant in this discussion. See above JeffSpaceman ( talk) 22:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC) JeffSpaceman ( talk) 04:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
In essence saying "Hand to God, believe me, I didn't mean what I said" doesn't cut it. You have cast aspersion and I request you strike a lot of wording from both your comments. Not only for me but for all Wikipedians who have worked in a topic-field related to AfD's such as this (and please read WP:Casting aspersions to understand why I'm being adamant about this for, again, not just myself but for other Wikipedians who you would cast into the same light). As for Murrow, hopefully you know who he was and what he accomplished. Since the article meets WP:GNG it's perfectly fine to talk about the topic of the song. Randy Kryn ( talk) 04:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
My knowledge of Murrow is irrelevant here. You still have not proven that the article meets WP:GNG. I assessed all of the sources in my original paragraph, and I came away from it with two reliable sources that name-checked the song (Slant, Guitar Player), with neither source providing special emphasis on it, an editorial about Murrow that, despite taking its name from it, only talks about the song across two meager paragraphs (Washington Post), and dead links without archives (Entertainment Weekly, FASPE Journalism). The only other sources were a YouTube link to a live performance and some fan site that posted the lyrics, neither of which is a reliable source of information by any stretch. Once again, please comment on the content of the article specifically, not a subject of it. That's not what this discussion is meant for. See above JeffSpaceman ( talk) 22:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC) JeffSpaceman ( talk) 04:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The linked Washington Post article covers the song with enough focus to meet both WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. I already said that above. Now how about my point about striking your aspersion language. Randy Kryn ( talk) 05:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I don't see where I casted aspersions, exactly. Regarding my first paragraph of my initial response to your vote, I maintain that your personal opinion about the subject of an article does not belong in a deletion discussion. Calling him a "hero of American journalism" and "an honest journalist" with "integrity" feels like unnecessary puffery, if you ask me. I don't see where I've made any personal attacks towards you or anyone else, I'm merely pointing out what I see as biased, peacocking language. Nothing more. See above JeffSpaceman ( talk) 22:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC) JeffSpaceman ( talk) 05:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Commenting on the subject of an article from someone who has experience and knowledge in a field of endeavor has seemed helpful and beneficial in other AfD's, RMs, etc. that I've read. Medical professionals, biologists, astronomers, and many others give their opinions about topics. without being accused of puffery, peacocking and such. So maybe all I'm saying is that you shouldn't make a habit of that, nor a habit of doubling down on your accusations when someone calls you on them. The topic of the article is a valid discussion point, especially, as I've repeated, the Washington Post article covers your concerns about notability. Randy Kryn ( talk) 05:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep - the song is notable for its production techniques and has been widely singled out for discussion by critics among a lengthy 18-track album. I've improved and diversified the referencing but is a work in progress. There are quite a few book/print references as well but I ma not experienced at citing these properly if anyone else wanted to take a look, if not I will attempt to educate myself in the correct formatting. Psywave ( talk) 09:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Psywave, I've added a Chicago Tribune source, done by cut-and-pasting the https information and formatting it as a reference. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep - Has adequate sources and coverage. Dobbyelf62 ( talk) 18:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. An editor doesn't have a COI if they have an opinion, concerns about COI would apply if an editor had a connection to this band or recording which is not true here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Strong keep due to the sourcing showing notability and being in depth. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk) 16:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I don't see any WP:SIGCOV of the song in the sources in the article. The Washington Post article just quotes the song's lyrics in a single sentence, and then is briefly referenced in a quote in the next sentence. A redirect is probably fine. SportingFlyer T· C 19:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    The song is from 2003, the Washington Post article from 2005. To think that the term just popped into everyone's head by accident after the song was released is stretching it. When multiple relistings after a good number of Keeps show up on an AfD, I hope closers take the full discussion into account and not just what happens after a relisting. Famous song topic, famous singing group, and the hope that journalists can someday again be as honest as Murrow was in his prime, this article seems a WP:COMMONSENSE keep and yes, it does meet GNG with the Washington Post coverage using the term that came out of nowhere and was then "on everybody's lips" and the Chicago Tribune's wonderful wording in its review praising Buckingham's guitar work on the song: "...from the psychedelic sun shower he conjures on "Murrow...". Please also realize that this song is not only a notable "song" but is a notable piece of journalistic history in popular culture - not every day that songs about journalists hit the airwaves. Randy Kryn ( talk) 23:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    With all due respect, neither the Washington Post and Chicago Tribune are significant coverage. The Chicago Tribune coverage of the song is literally just (from the psychedelic sun shower he conjures on "Murrow" to the banjolike picking he brings to "Thrown Down"), and the Washington Post is a single sentence of coverage which mostly just restates the lyric. All of the other sources are just about the album the song is on with the exception of the Quietus, so there's clearly no WP:GNG pass here and I don't know why you're claiming it's satisfied. SportingFlyer T· C 23:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
No, Buckingham's Guitar Player quote focuses on the song, the others mention it well, there is at least one book source and, as you point out, The Quietus section and, as I said, the 2005 Washington Post article which purposely focuses on the phenomena of many sources suddenly talking about Murrow rolling over in his grave - two years after this song was released. All of this is nit-picking the notability of an already well-written article with a dozen good sources. Significant coverage doesn't have to be a cover story in Time, it is a focus on a particular song in many different publications. Randy Kryn ( talk) 23:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment I already voted to keep this article earlier, so I'll provide some additional comments here. First off, it's important to mention that the article has transformed considerably since it was first nominated for deletion back on August 15th. In their reasoning, JeffSpaceman conducted a thorough review where they cited various issues with the page. One of the sources was simply a link to a live performance, another reference simply contained the lyrics to the song, and another had a dead url. Myself and other editors took note of these concerns and have resolved them.

Another issue brought up was the perceived lack of substantial coverage. A handful of sources simply reference the song in passing, and while this alone does not amount to sufficient coverage, it should be noted that several other references go into greater detail about the song, including the lyrical inspiration, background on when the song was written (with mention of the Gift of Screws recording sessions), and some of the production techniques utilized. Some of these references were added after the article was nominated, which warrants a reevaluation of the article's current merits. Dobbyelf62 ( talk) 20:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply

I agree with virtually everything you have written above. When I nominated this for deletion a few weeks ago, what I saw was an article with either unreliable sources or ones that did not establish independent notability of the song itself. Looking at it now, it's clear that those issues have been mostly resolved, and I would be willing to withdraw my nomination. Addressing the disagreements by User:SportingFlyer above, User:Randy Kryn is quite right when he points out that significant coverage does not have to be a cover story, just focus on a particular subject across multiple different, independent publications. That is exactly what this article has improved in since I nominated it, and it's why I can't stand by my initial nomination anymore. JeffSpaceman ( talk) 11:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
I still disagree, sorry. I understand that significant coverage isn't a Time cover story, but this article has been cobbled together off of single sentences in articles that just name-check it, since the articles are either about the album or about the subject of the song as a whole. Guitar Player, for instance, is simply a two-sentence quote from the singer in a list of quotes about the different songs on the album. Almost all of the references are like the Stereogum article: BUCKINGHAM: Yes. “Bleed To Love Her” ended up on Say You Will, “Murrow Turning Over In His Grave,” “Come” … but there were still all these other ones. Those x10 isn't significant coverage per the GNG, sorry. A redirect to the album's page makes sense. SportingFlyer T· C 11:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Thank you JeffSpaceman, it's all too rare that a nominator reverses their stand (a study in the strength of cognitive dissonance, which is usually found in politics and sports). Maybe you can toss a 'Keep' onto your comment to offset the above response. This AfD did, as all good AfD's do, garner more attention and added sources to the article, which is, as you point out, well improved since your nomination. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
User:Randy Kryn: Am I allowed to place a "keep" vote in an AfD I started? I just ask, because I don't know if I can do that. JeffSpaceman ( talk) 14:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Of course you can. SportingFlyer T· C 15:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
I did not think that this was possible. I thought that, as the editor who started this AfD, I could only start discussion, I couldn't vote either way. Is there a policy page I can look at for further information? I'm just wondering, so that I can be assured based on policy. JeffSpaceman ( talk) 16:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Liz: Is this possible?
DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk) 16:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
JeffSpaceman, if the nominator changes their mind, and there are no votes for Deletion, then the nominator can withdraw the nomination and it can be closed as Keep. If there are Delete opinions, I think the proper thing to do is to strike the portion of your deletion nomination that is no longer valid (using <s>Nomination</s>) and putting a Keep opinion below your nomination statement. It doesn't happen a lot but it does happen that a nominator changes their opinion when sources are brought to light. Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Wasn't by me, by Dobbyelf62 who deserves Thanks! Randy Kryn ( talk) 23:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Leigh Sherer

Leigh Sherer (  | 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 as a beauty pageant contestant. Let'srun ( talk) 03:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 03:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Glen Huntly Road

Glen Huntly Road (  | 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:GEOROAD. LibStar ( talk) 03:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Mahesh Kumar Garg

Mahesh Kumar Garg (  | 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 can find no evidence from the existing or available sources that the subject satisfies our notability requirements for WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Thilsebatti ( talk) 02:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Dear Wikipedia Administrators, I am preferring this appeal to enable me to keep the Wikipedia page for Mahesh Kumar Garg who is an accomplished poet and writer. I am aware that there is a policy against creating autobiographies on Wikipedia. The page for Mahesh Kumar Garg has been created after extensive research on poet's life, and I have included citations to the sources which are all authentic and comply with Wikipedia's standards and policy. I have also been respectful of other editors and have not engaged in any disruptive behavior. It is requested to revoke the block so that I can continue working on the Wikipedia page, which will be of help to the community and millions of readers and scholars of Hindi Literature.

Hello, MaheshGargBedhadak,
AFD discussions are determined by consensus of editors so your plea to keep this article is one opinion. The other editors have based their opinions on Wikipedia policies which carries more weight for the admin who will evaluate and close this discussion at the end of a week. But if you want to continue to work on this article, you should request that it be "Draftified", either to Draft or User space. As of the discussion right now, this is a more plausible outcome than a "Keep". Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Trent Staggs (American politician)

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

Being a mayor and a candidate for U.S. Senate is not enough for a WP page in and of itself. The sources cited are either the city's website, election results, or routine coverage of his administration or campaigns from local media outlets. Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 03:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • The subject has decent sources like https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trent-skaggs-utah-senate-mitt-romney_n_646d1259e4b056fd46dd071d, I think it might not be a bad thing to expand coverage to include such articles if they are well referenced and not overly promotional. - Indefensible ( talk) 04:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I have added several points and citations from various news sources. I hope that addresses the concerns. Hilton80 ( talk) 22:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete mayors and candidates do not have inherent notability per WP:10YT. He is not independently notable of his candidacy and should be covered on the Utah senatorial election page. SportingFlyer T· C 12:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Many articles for mayors and candidates are not as good as this so policy can be used to exclude them, but subject here probably has enough to meet WP:GNG. - Indefensible ( talk) 15:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    We exclude candidates even if they meet WP:GNG. He's a small town mayor and candidates are almost always redirected to the election they're running in unless they're independently important, he's not as a mayor of a small town, and this article was specifically created to WP:PROMOte a senate candidate - it's in the very first edit summary. SportingFlyer T· C 15:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Article's not in bad shape and it covers some things outside of his political activities. Well sourced too. I've seen worse articles that are still around here. -- TDKR Chicago 101 ( talk) 20:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    This is not just a discussion about whether or not the page is well-written, it's also a discussion about whether or not Trent Staggs is notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 21:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess changes made to the article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I believe Staggs is worthy of a page, but it definitely needs work. The fact that he doesn't even have an officeholder infobox makes me wonder if there are POV issues at work here. Going to work on some edits. PickleG13 ( talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Cuba, North Dakota

Cuba, North Dakota (  | 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 GNIS stub which geolocates to a grain elevator complex by the railroad. The oldest topo labels a building (no longer extant) as "town hall", but that's not really good enough. Searching is heavily masked by a trade deal but got nothing. Mangoe ( talk) 02:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Cha Jong-sok

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 02:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Master Piano Technicians of America

Master Piano Technicians of America (  | 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 unable to find evidence that this association meets N:ORG Star Mississippi 02:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2023 Rhode Island's 1st congressional district special election. Liz Read! Talk! 01:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Gabe Amo

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

There are few sources cited. Some are simply website directories, while others are direct links to events that Amo spoke at. The few articles cited are mostly local sources giving routine coverage to his White House job or his campaign. Doesn't seem to have gotten the ongoing, in-depth, national coverage required for a Wikipedia article; in my opinion, this page fails both WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 01:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - a WP:BEFORE search shows enough significant and in-depth coverage to meet WP:NPOL:
- Skipple ☎ 22:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • But all of this is just coverage of his congressional campaign. Would this not be considered routine coverage expected of any House candidate in a competitive race? Remember WP:1E BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 01:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment:I think the campaign + the white house position is enough to counter WP:1E concerns. However, I also don't think he meets WP:NPOL. So unless he meets WP:GNG, he should be deleted. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 18:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now, reexamine if he loses election Gabe Amo is currently running for Congress. If he wins the election, then I believe he is definitely notable enough to keep on Wikipedia. However, if he loses, I'll rethink my position. ❤History Theorist❤ 23:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    WP:TOOSOON means this is done the other way around - delete for now, restore if he wins. SportingFlyer T· C 14:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per comments above - I'm in this district and just went to Wikipedia to educate myself on the candidates. Llajwa ( talk) 12:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    That's not really the job of Wikipedia. We're not supposed to be a database of biographies, we're supposed to have articles on notable people. After the election is over, if Amo loses, how many people will need to "educate" themselves on him? BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 17:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete a WP:PROMOtional article in support of his political campaign. Should probably have already been deleted by now. The first version of this - before he announced a candidacy - fails WP:GNG. If he wins the campaign we can restore the article, but since we consistently delete people who are only notable for being candidates, we shouldn't keep this around as he's only notable because he's running for office. SportingFlyer T· C 14:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Doesn't meet GNG just by being a candidate for office. Seems like this article has been used mostly to pander the subject's image, especially considering recent editing activity. StartOkayStop ( talk) 04:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to 2023 Rhode Island's 1st congressional district special election as a usual and appropriate outcome for candidates for the US House of Representatives. There is no sense that the subject has received the national and international coverage that would suggest the subject is much more notable than average. Any relevant information can be added to the page about the election. -- Enos733 ( talk) 16:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    I support a redirect. SportingFlyer T· C 18:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    I would also back a redirect. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 19:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply

WODN-LD

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

Another non-notable LPTV; who else carries Deutsche Welle OTA? Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 02:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Here are your Cliffs Notes on this station. It's the last of four LPTVs that formed the Dunes Television Network, a regional LPTV network in Northwest Indiana that mostly relayed All News Channel with the odd Indiana collegiate event broadcast and local news inserts from WSBT-TV. LeSEA Broadcasting acquired the others in the 1990s and 2000s but not this one; those are all now dead, having not been converted to digital service. There is not a lot of coverage to go on. Clippings: [65] [66] [67] Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 08:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Sammi Brie: suffice it to say, this is a topic area where if she can't find sufficient coverage to satisfy the GNG, who can? Perhaps a brief mention of those WSBT-TV news inserts on the Dunes Television Network could be added to that station's article somewhere, but I doubt that would be enough to, for instance, merit any redirect. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Jeffrey Revell-Reade

Jeffrey Revell-Reade (  | 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)

Orphan article. Only known for his fraud so WP:BLP1E applies. LibStar ( talk) 02:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - WP:ONEEVENT. He and his accomplice committed fraud. Both were convicted and went to prison. There's not anything else to this article, except how much his house cost. There are only three sentences in the article. — Maile ( talk) 23:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Consensus to keep with no further discussion in the past 5 days. (non-admin closure) Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 05:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Catherine Willows

Catherine Willows (  | 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)

Though there is a clear Reception section, I don't know if it warrants the character's notability. Just because an actor won an award for the portrayal of the character doesn't mean the character themselves are notable. A quick Google search doesn't give many sources to prove the character's notability. I may be wrong, thus this AfD nomination. Spinixster (chat!) 14:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep. Beyond those listed in the article, I found sources on this character in USA Today, Deadline, CBS, ET, CBR (also here), Screenrant, The Wrap, Collider, and Slate. And that is a preliminary search. I'd imagine there are even more sources out there on her, and think this search only scratches the surface. Historyday01 ( talk) 16:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep coverage meets GNG, what's more likely needed here is a plot summary trim or condensation, not deletion. Jclemens ( talk) 16:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I knew we'd eventually get to this considering the trim of CSI characters. However, Catherine actually has a lot of WP:SIGCOV per Historyday01's sources. Ideally, the article can be fixed a bit, but AfD requires a WP:BEFORE search. On whether the article reaches WP:GNG, well the plot summary can be trimmed to include character growth and any reliable recaps. Conyo14 ( talk) 04:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect. The reception section in the article is bad. Awards are for the actor, not character, then we have listicles / trivial recognition like "number 82 on Bravo's 100 Greatest TV Characters" and some pasing comments about her from some episode reviews. This takes me to the soruces found above (from Historyday01), who did not however provide any analysis nor suggest they did anything but WP:GOOGLEHITS report. USAToday is a WP:INTERVIEW with the actor about the character, which means issues with independence. deadline is a short piece about her coming back to the show. So-so. CBS reads like a press release. Sorry, I don't have time to review more sources, but they are not impressive, and I distincly note they are not scholarly but rather at celebrity media level or worse. It is onus on those voting keep to argue there is reliable SIGCOV, not throw a list of links and imply they may or may not be helpful here. This is bad AFD practice. The character may be notable, but nobody has estabilished this, the article does not do it, sources presented here that I reviewed are bad. For now, my vote is to redirect this to the list of characters. Ping me if someone wants to argue there are good sources here to improve this with and I'll reconsider my vote. But right now the sources found seem weak. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep on the grounds that large numbers of people are likely to want information on this character and come here looking for it. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 20:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    See WP:ITSUSEFUL Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Okay, I will. Okay, I did. That was neat. I observe that "It's useful/useless" applies to arguments for keeping/deleting unencyclopedic content, which this is not, and it advises participants to say why the information is useful, which I did. But thank you for keeping me on my toes. Good to stay sharp! Hm, but the fact that you said it might mean that my "why" wasn't clear enough for you. I will improve it! Catherine Willows was one of the most popular and long-lasting characters on what was in its day one of the most popular shows in the United States to the point at which the CSI effect changed the way our legal system works, and very large numbers of people will be interested in finding reliable, encyclopedically written, out-of-universe information about her and will come here to find it. To address what @ Spinixster: says, they'll come here specifically because Wikipedia is not Fandom. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 00:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Darkfrog24 I am very confused about what you said. Even if the series is very popular, if the character is not notable on their own, they do not warrant a page on Wikipedia. See WP:FICTION. Spinixster (chat!) 08:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Yes, but Jclemens and Conyo14 already showed that she is notable on her own. Once the article passes that threshold, we consider things like whether its existence serves Wikipedia's readership. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 21:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    They just agreed with what Historyday said, they did not show that she is notable on her own. I already did an assessment of the sources Historyday has provided below, which you have seen. Spinixster (chat!) 08:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Darkfrog24 Aside from what Piotrus said, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Fandom. Spinixster (chat!) 09:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional specific analysis of the proposed sources would be helpful. "A lot of people would like this" is not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. The resources linked by Historyday generally point towards constituting significant coverage. Admittedly, to go through the rest of the sources, the amount of independence does go back and forth throughout the list. The source of "The Wrap" is mainly an interview with the actor, and the "ET" source also includes an interview segment with the character's actress as well, meaning those portions are not completely independent. But even then, the rest of the sources do seem to talk about the character individually, and also create notability for Catherine on her own. The article also supplements this with the actress's thoughts during interviews, which can't be really used as "independent sources", but there's enough there in regards to independence throughout the segments focused solely on the character. As for the reception, it does seem appropriate to include accolades the actress won because the actress and character are effectively linked, so I would maintain it. Utopes ( talk / cont) 03:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The sources provided by Historyday01 above pass SIGCOV and she is notable enough to have her own article. The article just needs some fixing. FlutterDash344 ( talk) 03:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment As the nominator, I'd like to do an evaluation on the sources that Historyday provided myself.
    • USA Today, ET and TheWrap are interviews, and thus do not prove notability.
    • CBS is the actor's biography: notice how the url says "csi-vegas/cast/216685/" and CSI is a CBS show.
    • First ScreenRant article talks about the show, CSI: Vegas, rather than the character. Obviously, for a major character, she will be mentioned a lot in articles relating to the show, but that does not prove notability of the individual character ( MOS:TRIVIA, WP:NOTTVTROPES)
    • Second ScreenRant article talks about how the aforementioned spinoff of CSI has "wasted" the character. While it does focus on the character's storylines, I don't see how this proves that the character is notable. (also MOS:TRIVIA, WP:NOTTVTROPES)
    • CBR is similar to the second ScreenRant article.
    • Deadline and Collider are similar to the second ScreenRant article, but about the character's return to the new series.
    • Slate is an opinion piece about the character, which can be used for the Reception section, but other than that is not enough to prove the character's individual notability.
I would like to remind you that just because the show is notable doesn't mean that the major characters are. Just because there are multiple sources about the character's appearances on the show does not mean that the character is inherently notable; this is something I've learned myself. I want future voters to keep this in mind before making a decision. Spinixster (chat!) 10:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Excellent summary. I found a few hits on Google Scholar. I added one to the article and listed the others on the talk page. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 22:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the first article I cannot access without paying :(, the third article is a just a mention, the fourth one is also not significant coverage. However, the second article is quite interesting and at least passes a partial if not all the way. It comes from the Texas State Library as a peer-reviewed journal: Journal of Research on Women and Gender. Granted the entire article discusses crimes against women as portrayed by the show vs the crimes against men and then analyzes the issues, but it does use Catherine Willows attack against her as a prime example. Conyo14 ( talk) 23:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Thanks for using what access you have to evaluate the sources that I couldn't reach. I was expecting that they wouldn't all be hits. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 23:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Darkfrog24 Since it seems like you would be interested in improving the article, I would recommend checking out MOS:FICTION. In short, it should have more information about the real-life aspects of the character and less WP:CRUFT. The article also lacks references. If you need more examples, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters/Quality content. Spinixster (chat!) 08:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
It's not clear how you find this article to deviate from MOS:FICTION. Which issue causes you to believe that the article should be deleted? Right now, improvements should focus on keeping its head above water rather than perfecting the swim stroke. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 15:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Darkfrog24 Perhaps you should re-read what I said. I was just saying that because you were interested in improving the article, I did not say it was needed, but it would be preferred.
I did a WP:BEFORE search and many of the results were much like the sources Historyday has given, so I started an AfD debate to debate on whether or not the article is notable. I have said in the nomination that I may be wrong, I never said I was correct. Spinixster (chat!) 15:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

AS3959

AS3959 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional analysis of the subject's notability, in light of the references proposed, would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete neither of the sources provided above meet WP:SIGCOV. Fails GNG. LibStar ( talk) 03:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The sources above do not meet SIGCOV. It also fails WP:GNG. FlutterDash344 ( talk) 03:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The article could also be titled "Building to reduce fire hazards in areas prone to brush fires in Australia", but AS3959 is a good shortcut for that and is recognized by people working in construction and fire prevention in Australia. I think the references are adequate. There are many articles on other national and international standards as well as on the bodies that create these standards. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 15:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a reason for keeping. LibStar ( talk) 04:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. The consensus of participants is that sources in the article and in this discussion are sufficient to establish GNG and this article should be Kept. Liz Read! Talk! 00:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Foundation for Universal Responsibility of His Holiness the Dalai Lama

Foundation for Universal Responsibility of His Holiness the Dalai Lama (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails to show how it meets WP:NORG of the four references presented, 1 is a blog and another is the orgs own website. A before search only came up with unreliable sources such as linkedin, youtube and instragam and database sources and non-independent sources. Lavalizard101 ( talk) 13:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Pakistan, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. Lavalizard101 ( talk) 13:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, this is the major peace foundation funded by the Nobel Peace Prize money awarded the Dalai Lama. Notable per WP:COMMONSENSE, and hopefully additional sources will be added. Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    See WP:NOCOMMON. Lavalizard101 ( talk) 14:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, there are plenty of mentions in books, which are potential sources. Nominator does not appear to have done a search for sources before nominating the article for deletion. Skyerise ( talk) 14:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Most of those book sources are by Rajiv Mehrotra, the secretary of the organisation or the Dalai Lama thus not independent as required for WP:NORG, the rest are either the foundation or its members used as sources ( example). Lavalizard101 ( talk) 14:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The foundation has received significant coverage in at least three, independent, reliable sources: [68], [69], [70]. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 21:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I've expanded the article using these sources. Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 23:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I cannot fully review your source 1 and 2 as those books aren't displaying previews for me, however the search inside function is showing for book 1 that the organisations name appears 3 times on unidentified pages and the text that is displaying around said appearances is not helpful in determining whether the text is SIGCOV about the organisaiton or whether this is just mentions. Same thing for source two but with 2 appearances of the organisations name one of which is reference, however the source is used for the criticism and other coverage in the article so may be more in depth then I can tell from what little is viewable by me. Source 3 is the only source I can fully review as it is a journal paper that is free to download. The coverage in source 3 about the foundation is focused on the WISCOMP so would meet SIGCOV. So in total sources 1 and 2 I have not fully reviewed and source 3 is SIGCOV. Lavalizard101 ( talk) 18:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I was able to access versions through my university. Source 1 has around a page of coverage as part of an encyclopedic listing of various organizations. Source 2 is a book chapter discussing activism by Nobel laureates. The foundation is mentioned in various places. The criticism information I added comes from a section of around 3 pages just on this organization. Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 16:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Significant coverage from reliable sources exist. Editorkamran ( talk) 07:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I have just opened an SPI into two brand new accounts that appeared at the article to remove criticism coverage. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Peacebuildera. Lavalizard101 ( talk) 17:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to 14th Dalai Lama. Notability cannot be inherited, and the sources don't even remotely meet the standard for WP:CORP in terms of significant/exclusive coverage of the organization. Steven Walling •  talk 01:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 01:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 05:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This may have been stated by the 14th Dalai Lama, but the work will continue after he's gone. The Carter Center is the closest American parallel that I can think of. It's specific purpose for existence is to advance human rights and alleviate human suffering. After both President Carter and Rosalynn Carter are dead, the Carter Center will carry on with the work they started. The center itself will not lose any notability, because the notability is in the work of the center. The 14th Dalai Lama is likely to be the last Dalai Lama, at least that's what he's said. The work of the Foundation for Universal Responsibility of His Holiness the Dalai Lama will continue with the same name. — Maile ( talk) 20:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - GNG is met, and the article is notable; I am in favour of keeping the article instead of merging. Ekdalian ( talk) 07:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Remi, Nobody's Girl

Remi, Nobody's Girl (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced since article creation, a major tenet of Wikipedia is Verification. This fails. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Anime and manga, Japan, and France. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep No BEFORE attempted. Verifiability is only failed if someone has tried to find references and cannot. Jclemens ( talk) 22:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete or merge/redirect to Nobody's Boy: Remi. I did a BEFORE and I am not seeing anything outside confirmation that yes, such an anime existed. Japanese article is longer but it doesn't seem to have any information on reception, awards, etc. That said, sources may exist in Japanese - but that's not an argument for keeping, just a speculation. I'd like to see this saved - ping me if sources are found and I'll behappy to reconsider my vote. I'll note that the Boy original is pretty poor too (for determining notability), but the very fact it got several remakes including the one nominated here suggests there is a notable topic here. But it is possible, yes, that not every remake needs a stand-alone article (that said, the original anime is itself an adaptation of the French novel, see Sans_Famille#Film_and_television, so it is possible that what is notable is the original novel but not the animes...). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: It looks like this is also called Remi: A Child Without a Home in English. (At least, that's the title it's given in The Anime Encyclopedia, 3rd Revised Edition, according to Google Books. That's one decent source for a Japanese programme from the early days of the internet. There will surely be others in Japanese and/or offline, so I suspect this is notable. Josh Milburn ( talk) 18:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep 11 interwikis plus a sizeable Japanese article mentioning offshot media - looks sufficiently notable to me, considering this didn't originate in the English-speaking sphere. – sgeureka t• c 12:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Sgeureka I often agree with you but this is just a wish that WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES. I hope so, too, but we need to show those sources, and the Japanese articles is poorly referenced, I feel. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I am not actually claiming/expecting there to be sources for development/reception like usual, but I regard the existance of several media (26 TV episodes plus 8 Japanese ISBN) noteworthy - which we can source. [71] [72] [73] etc. This is IMO not much different to the List of Lucky Luke albums situation - barely nor no individual notability, and obviously people look this up internationally (per the interwikis), so it's IMO keep- and mention-worthy as long as it's kept to one noncrufty page. – sgeureka t• c – sgeureka t• c 11:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here and I'm not yet ready to close this as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to Nobody's Boy: Remi: I disagree with the sentiment of the nomination (we shouldn't be deleting articles just b/c they're unreferenced) but searches in English and Japanese (via machine translation) doesn't uncover anything useful. Ping me if sources are found. CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE 05:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per Piotrus. There don't appear to be reliable sources. There is a good redirect target per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker ( talk) 14:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I found a few sources:
In addition, there are some plausible sources from the NDL Digital Collections but there is only snippet view so I'm not sure. All that combined with the Anime Encyclopedia source it should be enough. Courtesy ping @ Piotrus: and @ ClydeFranklin: per their request. Jumpytoo Talk 18:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Jumpytoo This is very appreciated. Sadly, I am not able to access/translate those sources - can you elaborate on how they meet WP:SIGCOV and wP:RS? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The first source has the third chapter be dedicated to this work and one other work (the link provides the table of contents, and there is also this book review which correlates), and the second source has around half a page describing the airing history behind it, on how it replaced an anime that got cancelled because it was garbage, and how this anime also got canned pretty quickly because it was also unpopular.
The NDL Digital collections also show a few sources with potential but I can't read them, for example one of them has the following available as snippet (Google translated): "The main character of the last " Homeless Remi " is the same as the original...", and I presume it talks more about the series in the full text which is not visible. Jumpytoo Talk 07:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some actual analysis of the proposed references would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, kudos to Jumpytoo per sources above. Both are significant coverage and definitely reliable. The book was published by Yamakawa Shuppansha (( ja), which is a well-established academic publisher, and Yūichi Morioka ( ja) is an Osaka University professor emeritus. Ariko Kawabata ( ja), the journal essay's author, is also a notable academic. Given the pre-Internet era subject and the usual difficulties in looking for Japanese sources, I am surprised that there is so much online. Furthermore, it is quite obvious there is more offline. Cavarrone 08:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Sources provided by Jumpy should be added to the article by someone with access to them. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 14:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the sources found. I also want to remind future nominators in general to follow WP:BEFORE. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 13:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Paco Lala's

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

No evidence of notability. Tagged for additional sources in 2011, but no improvements were made. Could also be redirected to Cada mañana where the subject is mentioned, though I personally prefer deletion. CycloneYoris talk! 00:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as non-notable. Fails WP:ENT and the one source only makes a passing mention as a picture-caption and doesn't demonstrate notability. Utopes ( talk / cont) 04:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment found a couple of articles ( [74], [75]) about some legal troubles he has been having; not sure if that is enough to establish notability. I also don't know anything about the reliability of that second publication (Univision I presume is reliable). WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 22:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I checked these sources, and while it talks about the problems he was facing, from my point of view this does not establish notability as an entertainer/TV personality. While Univision I'd agree seems to be a reliable source on its own right, it talks mainly about the scandal and not about Paco Lala's career. Neither of those two links back up Paco Lalas' notability, nor can I find reliable sources that do, so the background of "panelist on one show" does not seem to be enough. Utopes ( talk / cont) 02:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails GNG, tagged for sources for too long; clearly cannot be considered as a notable. Ekdalian ( talk) 07:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_August_29&oldid=1174082330"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE